Preamble

The House met at Half past Two o'Clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

METROPOLITAN WATER BOARD BILL

TYNEMOUTH CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.

HUDDERSFIELD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF SUPPLY

Tinplate (Controls)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Supply what further obstacles remain to the ending of the allocations scheme or rationing of tinplate; and whether he will now make a statement.

The Minister of Supply (Mr. Duncan Sandys): Tinplate supplies are for the time being sufficient to meet the present

abnormally low demands. But it is generally expected that in the near future there will be an appreciable increase in the volume of orders, which might quite likely again create a shortage. Until the outlook is clearer, it would I think be wise to defer any decision about the future of the tinplate controls.

Mr. Nabarro: While I recognise the need to continue this control in a modified form, may I ask my right hon. Friend whether he will give an assurance that fully adequate supplies of tinplate will be available this season to meet the urgent demand of the food processors, notably the fruit growers in the Vale of Evesham, Worcestershire, Wisbech, Kent and elsewhere?

Mr. Sandys: There certainly should be. I have constantly in mind the importance of meeting the needs of the fruit industry.

Helicopters (Passenger Services)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Supply what progress has been made in recent months in the production of helicopters designed to be suitable for passenger services.

Mr. Sandys: Two types of twinengined helicopters suitable for passenger service are being developed under Ministry of Supply contracts. One of these, the Bristol 173, is approaching the stage when orders could be placed. The scale of production will depend upon the volume of orders.

Mr. Dodds: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that statement, but is he aware that there are people in the business who feel that the Government are not giving all the encouragement they might, in view of the great possibilities of helicopters in both peace and war? Are the Government giving the necessary support?

Mr. Sandys: As I have said before, I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for helicopters, but no good will be done by my repeating it at such frequent intervals. The Government are well aware of the importance of the helicopter, and we are doing everything possible to encourage its development and production.

Mr. Woodburn: Has any progress been made towards giving confidence in taking these machines over water, such as would be involved in services to the Highlands and Islands? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there has been a bar on taking them across water?

Mr. Sandys: I will be very glad to take a trip with the right hon. Gentleman to show that we have every confidence in them.

Mr. Woodburn: I went up in a helicopter in the pioneering days. The point is that helicopters are not allowed to take passengers over water. Have we got to the stage when that bar can be lifted?

Mr. Sandys: When it comes to carrying passengers as a paying service, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, all sorts of additional precautions are insisted upon and are no doubt desirable. I, too, was engaged in the earlier stages, when the auto-gyro was in its prime.

Radar Equipment (Development)

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Minister of Supply whether he will make a statement on the steps being taken by Her Majesty's Government to develop new types of radar equipment, in view of the existence of jet planes able to fly at supersonic speeds or at near supersonic speeds.

Mr. Sandys: The advent of jet aircraft, with their higher speeds, altitude and rate of acceleration has necessitated considerable changes in radar and other equipment

A considerable range of both airborne and ground equipment to meet these more exacting specifications is either already in production or in an advanced stage of development.

Mr. Henderson: Is there any exchange of information on this development with the United States Government?

Mr. Sandys: Quite a lot.

High-speed Aircraft (Low Flying)

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Supply, in view of the rapid progress which is being made with the development of aeroplanes to fly at supersonic speed, what steps he proposes to take to avoid, so far as possible, damage to persons and buildings from machines flying at high speeds at low altitudes.

Mr. Sandys: It will be many years before aircraft will be able to fly at supersonic speeds at low altitudes.

Mr. Janner: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that a number of scientists think his reply is incorrect and that they expect this contingency to arise within a few years? Will he keep the matter well in mind in case development is quicker than the Government imagine possible?

Mr. Sandys: The scientists have not had very long to consider my reply. Existing regulations govern the height at which aircraft may fly over built-up areas, and the revision of the regulations will be considered when we have more experience of the problem.

North-East Foundries (Scrap Supplies)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Minister of Supply (1) what percentage of heavy machinery scrap is being delivered to ironfoundries in the North-East, compared with pre-war years;
(2) if he is aware that the scrap being delivered to ironfoundries in the North-East is often of inferior quality; and what measures he intends to take to alter this state of affairs;
(3) whether he is aware of the shortage of scrap suitable for ironfoundries in the North-East; and if he will take steps to rectify this.

Mr. Sandys: There are no statistics showing heavy machinery scrap separately. There is a general shortage of the types of scrap most suitable for ironfoundries, but I have no evidence that foundries in the North-East have received less favourable treatment than others.

Mr. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that a quantity of this scrap is becoming available from Her Majesty's dockyards, and will he consult his right hon. Friend to see whether it can be made available to the ironfoundries in the North-East?

Mr. Sandys: My information is that the proportion of heavy scrap delivered to foundries in the North-East is higher than the average for the country as a whole.

Mr. Malcolm MacPherson: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that in the Falkirk and Bonnybridge area the iron casting industry is in a state of slump and there is some evidence that the present supply of scrap and the system governing it are such as to prevent it from helping itself? Will he look at the quota and licence system and consider whether a revision of the system would enable some of the Falkirk and Bonnybridge foundries to change from the goods which they have been manufacturing to other types of goods which require more scrap?

Mr. Sandys: I shall be glad to consider any suggestions that the hon. Gentleman has to make.

Test Pilots

Mr. Janner: asked the Minister of Supply why Government test pilots are to be replaced by Royal Air Force test pilots in Government aircraft establishments, in view of the excellent work which these test pilots have done in the past.

Mr. Sandys: I am at present considering whether any change should be made in the proportions of civilian and Service test pilots employed in Ministry of Supply establishments. I have not yet reached a decision on this question.

Mr. Janner: While the Minister is considering the future of those now employed will he bear in mind that they have been engaged upon a very risky type

of work and that the incidence of death in the experiments conducted by them and their colleagues has been high and will he assure us that he will not, merely for the sake of economy, discharge people who have rendered very considerable service to the country?

Mr. Sandys: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has given me the opportunity to say publicly that I am well aware of the fine record of skill and courage of both civilian and Service test pilots.

Mr. Janner: That is not an answer to my question.

Iron and Steel Report (Popular Edition)

Mr. Beswick: asked the Minister of Supply if he will direct that there shall be published a shortened popular illustrated edition of the most recent annual report of the Iron and Steel Board.

Mr. Sandys: No, Sir.

Mr. Beswick: In view of everything that has been said by the right hon. Gentleman's party about the failure of public ownership, does he not want to make absolutely certain that every man and woman knows exactly how valuable and successful the steel industry, with its £64 million surplus, was last year? Will he reconsider his answer?

Mr. Sandys: Although people will have more leisure for reading during the holiday period, I am advised that there is unlikely to be any great popular demand for an illustrated version of the report and accounts of the Iron and Steel Corporation.

Mr. Beswick: If there is no demand for this type of literature, can the right hon. Gentleman say why the Iron and Steel Federation have been turning out so much glossy stuff?

Mr. Sandys: I thought it right to consult the Chairman of the Iron and Steel Corporation about the hon. Member's suggestion. He shares my view that there is not likely to be any popular demand for the publication and is not in favour of such a publication being produced.

Mr. Willey: Will the right hon. Gentleman, as the responsible Minister, try to promote discussion about the report in the Conservative Party circles?

Mr. Sandys: A number of public bodies have produced the so-called popular illustrated versions at low prices, but their experience has not been encouraging. A number of them have had to give away copies free because of lack of demand.

Steel Plate Supplies

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Supply (1) what adjustments in the pattern of production and deliveries have been considered desirable by the inter-Departmental committee on the allocation of steel plates; and what action has been taken;
(2) in what instances, since the appointment of the inter-Departmental committee on the allocation of steel plates, improved deliveries of steel plate have been arranged for Wear shipbuilders.

Mr. Sandys: A variety of steps have been taken with the object of ensuring that existing plate-making capacity is used to the full. In addition arrangements have been made to import increased quantities of steel plate from abroad. As a result there should be some progressive improvement in supplies. Increased deliveries of steel plates have been arranged for eight Wear shipbuilders.

Mr. Willey: The right hon. Gentleman will realise that we appreciate the setting up of the committee, but can he let us have more details about the steps which are being taken, because there is great interest in this? While we on the Wear seem to have good reason for satisfaction, the industry generally would appreciate being kept up to date about the steps that the committee is taking.

Mr. Sandys: I cannot go into great detail in answer to a supplementary question, but I can say that, in addition, the inter-Departmental committee has been trying to iron out specific difficulties. So far it has had 30 applications; action has been taken on 26 of them and the remaining four are under consideration.

Mr. P. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the Wear shipbuilders appear to be well satisfied with the initial moves of the inter-Departmental committee, but can he say whether the deliveries of imported steel plate are to be subtracted from the allocations of home steel plate?

Mr. Sandys: My hon. Friend should not make that assumption.

Mr. Hector Hughes: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the bad distribution of steel plates applies not only to the east coast of England but also to the north-east coast of Scotland? What is he doing to provide better supplies for the shipbuilding yards in North-East Scotland?

Mr. Sandys: Steps are being taken to improve supplies for the shipbuilding industry as a whole.

Mr. Champion: asked the Minister of Supply to what extent the shortage of steel plates and forgings for the Railway Executive's rolling stock programmes has now been overcome.

Mr. Sandys: There has been an improvement in the deliveries of plates and forgings for this purpose and I understand that this has enabled the Railway Executive to restore part of the cut they had been obliged to make in their rolling stock production programme.

Mr. Champion: Having regard to the fact that at present the Railway Executive are using many carriages which are 40 to 50 years old, will the Minister do his utmost not merely to restore the cuts but to give the Transport Commission a good and full allocation in their requirements for the whole of their programme?

Mr. Sandys: That is our aim.

Iron and Steel Board (Appointed Day)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Supply whether in view of the second annual report of the Iron and Steel Corporation, he will give an assurance that he will not name the appointed day under the Iron and Steel Act, 1953, before the next General Election.

Mr. Summers: asked the Minister of Supply if he is yet in a position to fix the appointed day under the Iron and Steel Act, 1953.

Mr. Sandys: I regret that I do not feel able to accede to the suggestion that the appointed day should be postponed so long. Before fixing the date, I thought it right to seek the advice of the Chairman of the Board and the Chairman of the Agency. The joint recommendation they made to me was that the appointed day


should be either 6th July or 13th July. Out of regard for the views of the party opposite I have selected the later of these two dates.

Mr. Willey: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that as recently as Friday the Civil Lord of the Admiralty, replying to the debate on the Adjournment, pointed out that one of the great advantages which shipbuilders have at the moment is cheap steel? In those circumstances, in view of the excellence of this report and the steps that the Corporation have taken for the industry, he should not give way to his doctrinaire colleagues but should stand up to them and postpone the date.

Sir H. Williams: Is my right hon. Friend aware that when the party opposite nationalised the iron and steel industry they did it in such a way so that it could be denationalised easily? Nobody who was a director really felt that he was nationalised.

Oral Answers to Questions — NATIONAL INSURANCE

Retirement Pensions (Physical Disabilities)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of National Insurance if he will take steps to ensure that payments made by the National Assistance Board to persons in need shall not be reduced solely by reason of increases in their retirement pensions or increases in pensions due to aggravation of their physical disabilities.

The Minister of National Insurance (Mr. Osbert Peake): No, Sir. I see no reason for suggesting any change in the existing practice under which retirement pensions are taken fully into account on an application for supplementary assistance and the first £1 of a disability pension is disregarded.

Mr. Gower: Does the Minister appreciate that if, for example, an ex-Service man's pension is increased because it is considered that his physical condition merits a larger pension it must then appear a very great injustice if assistance is immediately reduced by a similar compensating amount?

Mr. Peake: As my hon. Friend knows, there is a highly elaborate system of disregards which put certain persons and certain classes of person in a more favourable position in the matter of National

Assistance, and I think it would be very serious to attempt to embark on piecemeal alterations.

U.K.-Australia Insurance Benefits (Publicity)

Major Anstruther-Gray: asked the Minister of National Insurance what steps he is taking to bring the proposed scheme for reciprocal insurance benefits between Australia and the United Kingdom to the attention of prospective emigrants and immigrants.

Mr. Peake: There are still a number of details to be settled between the Social Security and Migration authorities of the two countries in connection with the agreement. The question of publicity will be borne in mind in the discussions on these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Merchants (Change)

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will take steps to permit householders to change their coal merchants freely and at any time in the year.

The Minister of Fuel and Power (Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd): I have most carefully considered my hon. Friend's suggestion, but I am afraid that it is not practicable at present.

Mr. Gower: Does not the Minister agree that this is one of the regulations which we want to get rid of? Is he aware that many members of the public feel that this regulation is entirely superfluous?

Mr. Lloyd: I can understand my hon. Friend's feeling, but the restriction that, unhappily, has to persist at present on coal for domestic use is not worked on a coupon system but depends upon the records in the merchants' hands. The difficulty is to prevent consumers from getting more than their proper entitlement.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: As a serious shortage of domestic coal is almost certain this winter, does that not mean that it is more necessary to tighten up the regulations rather than relax them in the way the hon. Gentleman suggests?

Production and Stocks

Mr. Dodds: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will make a statement on the coal situation, in view of the decline in production and the substantial increase in consumption this year, compared with a similar period in 1952.

Mr. T. Reid: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to prevent a fuel shortage in Swindon next winter, in view of the fact that though the coal merchants there are taking their permitted quantities of coal, they can only meet current needs and cannot stock up appreciably for the winter.

Brigadier Medlicott: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power (1) if he is aware that coal merchants in Norfolk are concerned about the coal situation in the county; that present stocks are un-precedentedly low; that the supplies now arriving at the depots are less than are needed; and if he will make a statement;
(2) if his attention has been drawn to the fact that although 240,000 new homes have been built in Great Britain during the past year, the amount of the house coal programme for this summer is 500,000 tons less than the amount for the summer of 1952; and if he will make a statement as to what measures are being taken to meet this situation.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power what steps he is taking to ensure adequate coal supplies for industrial and domestic consumers in South Wales next winter.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: As a result of the Coronation we have lost about 1¼ million tons of coal and it is estimated that the second week's holiday which workers in most other industries already enjoy and which the miners are taking for the first time this year will lose a further 3½ million tons.
This is the crux of our coal difficulties this year and the main question is whether production can be increased sufficiently to offset it. During the first three months of this year production was bad and up to Easter was only about 20,000 tons a week more than last year, despite an extra 10,000 men in the industry. Nowhere was the seriousness of this appreciated more clearly than in the

industry itself, and following the joint production campaign in the spring, production during the last two months, after making allowance for the extra holidays, has been higher by about 100,000 tons a week than the year before. Thanks to this improvement we have already gone some way to make up for the losses resulting from the extra holidays. This is most welcome but the whole of the industry recognise that more is needed, especially in view of the rising trend of consumption.
I have been in constant touch with the National Coal Board and the merchants and I assure the House that concerted efforts will continue to be made by all concerned to raise stocks to the highest possible level before the winter.

Mr. Dodds: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that for a long time now there has been a lot of uneasiness and feeling that the Minister has been too complacent and has not been putting before the public the position as he knows it? Is he aware that on Saturday the President of the Coal Merchants' Federation stated that the position was worse now than ever it was even during the war and that the householders will have to take 5 per cent. less coal in the next 12 months than in the last 12 months? Is this not serious?

Mr. Lloyd: The essential point of the speech of the President of the Coal Merchants' Federation was that both the public and the merchants during this summer should be prepared to accept not merely the highest qualities of coal but also other kinds of coal which can be offered by the Coal Board to the merchants. That statement was made after a meeting between him, myself and the chairman of the Board.

Mr. Gower: Has the Minister any particular remarks to make on the situation in Wales, and, secondly does he propose to take any extraordinary action such as arranging for imported coal as did his predecessor in the previous Government?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir, I have no special statement to make about South Wales, but I will keep the House informed of any progress in this important matter.

Sir H. Williams: The miners will have to work harder.

Mr. Reid: In view of the right hon. Gentleman's pessimistic report, can he hold out no hope whatever of preventing a coal shortage this winter?

Mr. Lloyd: No, Sir. The situation, admittedly, is difficult, but I think we can get through if we get full co-operation between the Coal Board, the merchants and the public.

Mr. Manuel: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that all informed sources in Scotland as well as in England agree that there will be a shortage this year, especially of consumer coal? What is he doing to safeguard the position?

Mr. Lloyd: I am very glad that there is anxiety at the present time about the coal situation because it is justified and it is very much better that we should be thoroughly anxious now than that we should be taken by surprise when the winter comes. Everybody in the industry is working very hard in connection with this matter.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that in the first three months of this year there was a heavy incidence of influenza, and that but for the extra holidays there would have been 1½ million tons more of coal produced in the five months of this year than in the corresponding period of last year? Is not the most important single factor that the Government should encourage the use of efficient modern appliances by housholders so that they can take the smaller coal which is now being produced in adequate quantities?

Mr. Lloyd: Yes, I think there was a good deal of influenza among the miners during the early part of the year and that that did affect production. It is very gratifying to see that the rate of production, after allowing for holidays, is much higher now. It is also true that the improved appliances which enable householders to burn other than large coal are an exceedingly important contributing factor to a better position in this matter, and it is very much to be desired that those who have these appliances will realise that they can burn the smaller sizes of coal to the great benefit of the coal situation.

Mr. Glanville: In view of the interjection made by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams), who

never did a day's work in his life, is the Minister aware that the miners are paid by production and that if they produce nothing they get nothing? That may be a bit of information for the hon. Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — SEVERN BARRAGE

Mr. Benn: asked the Minister of Fuel and Power if he will grant permission for work to begin in the near future on the Severn barrage, in view of its importance to West Country and the nation.

Mr. Geoffrey Lloyd: The economic case for embarking on this project in present conditions is not established. Meanwhile, research is in hand on various unsolved technical problems, and experiments are being made on models to determine the effect of the barrage on Bristol Channel ports.

Mr. Renton: Is my right hon. Friend aware that I asked the same Question in 1946 and got approximately the same answer?

Mr. Hamilton: No progress under the Tories.

Mr. Nabarro: Will my right hon. Friend bear in mind that at a very modest estimate this scheme would cost £200 million to save one million tons of coal a year, and that for a commensurate investment in other directions vastly greater coal economy could be achieved.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF MATERIALS (PLYWOOD)

Mr. Nabarro: asked the Minister of Materials (1) the reasons that have prompted his decision to require importers to buy two-thirds of their requirements of plywood from Government stocks; how long this arrangement is to last; and what assurances he can give that the Government stocks are representative of consumer needs, that prices are competitive and that industrial requirements for plywood will not be frustrated by his edict;
(2) the estimated period required to liquidate Government stocks of plywood; and what steps he is taking to prevent further distortion of the pattern of supplies and demand for this material, arising from the selling and imports


ratios, respectively, for Government stocks and private imports, that he has recently imposed.

The Minister of Materials (Sir Arthur Salter): The linking of the issue of import licences for plywood to purchases from the Ministry's stock is designed to avoid unnecessary imports and undue loss to the, taxpayer. The ratio is fixed from time to time after consultation with the plywood trade and with regard to the Ministry's stock position. I have recently reviewed the position following the completion of the Ministry's import obligations and the volume of sales already effected. The trade are shortly being informed of a relaxation which will have the broad effect of doubling the value of import entitlement in return for a given purchase of the Ministry's stock. If disposal continues at a satisfactory rate, I shall, of course, be prepared to consider further relaxations.
As to prices, I consider those now being charged to be reasonable in relation to the general level of the market; but they are kept under constant review.

Mr. Nabarro: While thanking my right hon. Friend for his most welcome decision and the relaxation he has given, may I ask him for an assurance that, once he has disposed of the residual of his plywood stocks, he will not engage in any further State trading in this commodity and will hand the whole trade back to its proper place, namely, the private traders?

Sir A. Salter: We are not engaged in public trading in this commodity; we are merely disposing of the remnant of the Ministry's stock left after the cessation of——

Mr. Nabarro: Socialism.

Sir A. Salter: —public trading.

Oral Answers to Questions — MID-OCEAN CLUB, BERMUDA

Mr. Mikardo: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will instruct Her Majesty's Ambassador at Washington to report the representations received from persons or associations in the United States of America on the subject of the Mid-Ocean Club in Bermuda in connection with the proposed visit by the Prime Minister, and on the

replies which have been made to such representations.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): Her Majesty's Ambassador has received no representations on this subject.

Oral Answers to Questions — BERLIN AND EAST GERMANY (SITUATION)

Mr. Noel-Baker: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will lay a White Paper on the recent events in Berlin and the Eastern Zone of Germany.

Mr. Nutting: My right hon. Friend will consider this.

Mr. Ernest Davies: Could the hon. Gentleman tell us whether there is any new development in Berlin, what the position is now, and whether the restrictions imposed by the Russians have yet been removed?

Mr. Nutting: According to our latest information the situation in East Berlin is that the three Soviet divisions which were moved in to deal with the riots are still in the Soviet sector, that the general picture is that the Russians are trying to restore normal life and that they have met with some success, but that inter-sector transport has not yet been resumed. Meanwhile, the three Allied High Commissioners have addressed a note to the Soviet occupation authorities insisting that all measures should be taken without delay to ensure a return to normal life in Berlin and to remove all restrictions which have been placed upon the movement of persons and vehicles and upon communications?

Mr. Noel-Baker: If the Government issue a White Paper, will they consider putting in it the Notes that were exchanged with the Soviet authorities, the declarations made by the Germans on both sides—representative Germans—and any reliable information they may have about the causation of the incidents?

Mr. Nutting: If it should prove possible to present the House at any stage with a comprehensive picture of the situation in a White Paper, the points made by the right hon. Gentleman will be borne in mind.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is the Minister aware that there have been some excellent illustrations in the German Press which put the matter in proper perspective and support the point of view which was presented to the House last week by his hon. Friend? Will he consider putting some of those illustrations in the White Paper?

Oral Answers to Questions — BERMUDA CONFERENCE (TELEGRAPHIC EQUIPMENT)

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why, after it has been announced that the Bermuda conference will not last more than four or five days, he has approved the arrangements for sending by air from this country to Bermuda seven tons of telegraph equipment and 34 technicians for the period of the conference.

Mr. Nutting: One and three-quarter tons of special equipment and four technicians had been sent by air to Bermuda for the purpose of official communications during the Bermuda talks.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is it not a fact that more equipment and technicians were to be sent, and when the time comes for the Prime Minister to go to the three-Power Conference—we hope he may soon be restored to health—will the Government try to see that the detailed conference arrangements are organised on a rather less extravagant basis?

Mr. Nutting: Her Majesty's Government, particularly Her Majesty's present Government, do everything they can to exercise economy in these matters. I think the hon. and gallant Gentleman is confused. The large amount of equipment was sent out by Cable and Wireless to meet the anticipated requirements of the American, British and French reporters during the conference.

Mr. Shinwell: When the hon. Gentleman speaks of exercising economy in this matter, may I ask him, with great respect to his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, whether he regards it as economy to use the "Vanguard"?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Speaker: This Question is about telegraph equipment.

Oral Answers to Questions — SURPLUS MEAT, NEWCASTLE (SALE)

Mr. Murray: asked the Minister of Food if he is aware that, after all their registered customers had been served in the butchers' market, Newcastle, on Saturday, 20th June, notices were posted to the effect that meat was on sale to all; that, after selling to unregistered customers, when the market closed, butchers still had meat left on their hands; and what action he is taking to remedy this inequality in distribution.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Food (Dr. Charles Hill): I understand that a notice to this effect was put up by a trader in the Newcastle-butchers' market, although, shortly after, his employer ordered its removal. As my right hon. and gallant Friend announced on 26th June, butchers will be allowed to sell, free of ration restrictions, any meat which they may hold surplus to their ration requirements, as from 5th July.

Mr. Murray: Is the Minister aware that this is an example of the gross inefficiency of the Ministry of Food? Does he not realise that what he is now ordering to be done will only leave the poorest quality of meat on the market, which nobody will care to buy? What is he going to do about that?

Dr. Hill: It is an inevitable part of rationing and control that it should fall to the Ministry to dispose of all the meat available. The only assurance of a free exercise of public choice is the end of rationing and control, which will be brought about at the earliest possible moment.

Miss Lee: Can the Minister tell us at what time in the week the butcher will be able to release extra supplies, and what provisions are made to see that those who are buying their rationed quantity may be able to get the better meat? Have we got to buy on the Monday, or can we postpone buying until later in the week and still have a reasonable opportunity of getting top quality meat?

Dr. Hill: It will be an obligation on the butcher to serve his registered customers with their full rations. When


there is a surplus—and only when there is a surplus—he will be free to sell the surplus.

Captain Duncan: Is the Minister aware that on this side of the House we welcome the relaxation of control and may I ask him when this relaxation can be made permanent?

Dr. Hill: When the supply of meat is regarded as sufficient over the whole of the year, and when a plan has been evolved for satisfying the requirements of the Agriculture Act, 1947, in respect of guaranteed prices and markets, full de-rationing will take place.

Mr. Lewis: Is it not the case that the Minister of Food has now introduced the abolition of rationing by the book and introduced rationing by the purse, and is it not a fact that those who have enough money can now get all the meat they want?

Dr. Hill: To both those questions the answer is, No, Sir.

Miss Lee: On a point of order. I do not think that my supplementary question was heard on the other side of the House, Sir. I was asking about the quality of meat and at what time in the week one must buy one's ration to ensure getting the better quality meat.

Mr. Speaker: There is no obligation on a Minister to answer a question. There is nothing I can do about it.

Oral Answers to Questions — OIL POLLUTION

Sir H. Roper: asked the Minister of Transport whether he has now received a report from the committee appointed by him to consider what steps can be taken to prevent pollution of the coast by oil; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. R. Robinson: asked the Minister of Transport when he expects to receive the report of his committee on the prevention of pollution of the sea by oil.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Mr. Gurney Braithwaite): My right hon. Friend expects to receive the committee's report by the end of this week. He is arranging

that it shall be printed and hopes that copies will be available before the House rises for the Summer Recess.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROADS

Eassie Level Crossing, Angus

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Transport how many accidents have taken place in the last five years at the Eassie level crossing, Angus.

Mr. Braithwaite: Fourteen accidents have occurred here since 1st January, 1949, none involving personal injury.

Captain Duncan: asked the Minister of Transport the estimated cost of building a bridge over the railway at the Eassie level crossing, Angus.

Mr. Braithwaite: We know of no recent scheme for a bridge here. One was prepared in 1939 at a then estimated cost of about £30,000, including road improvements, but did not proceed. I understand that the county council are now considering, as a long-term scheme, a diversion which would eliminate the level crossing.

Captain Duncan: Will my hon. Friend encourage the county council to proceed with this scheme instead of, as is reported in the local Press, the Ministry of Transport refusing to consider it?

Mr. Braithwaite: I do not think we are refusing to consider it. We are emphasising that it will have to be a long-term scheme in view of the financial situation.

Traffic Conditions, Jermyn Street

Mr. Russell: asked the Minister of Transport if he is aware that traffic in both directions is now frequently brought to a complete standstill in Jermyn Street, W.1, owing to the narrowness of the street and the number of vehicles parked on both sides of it at all hours of the day; and if he will now replace the no-waiting restrictions by unilateral waiting and reconsider his decision not to try one-way traffic as an experiment.

Mr. Braithwaite: Traffic conditions in Jermyn Street have presented a troublesome problem for many years, but I am advised that the reintroduction of unilateral waiting would only increase the difficulties there. We will, however, consider with the Commissioner of Police


and the other authorities concerned whether one-way working should be introduced in conjunction with the existing no-waiting restrictions.

Mr. Russell: While thanking my hon. Friend for the suggestion about one-way working, may I ask whether he is aware that the no-waiting restrictions are seldom obeyed and are as much good as having no no-waiting restrictions at all?

Mr. Braithwaite: I am informed that there is a constable daily on patrol in the street and that a large number of infringements of the regulations have been reported. I would agree, however, that the position is not altogether satisfactory.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that his decision to make Jermyn Street a one-way street and not to allow parking there will be welcomed by all who want to see a little contribution on the part of the present Government to solving the problem of the growing paralysis of traffic in the West End?

The following table shows the annual expenditure which falls to be met from the Road Fund in respect of maintenance and minor improvement of trunk and classified roads from 1946–47 to 1951–52, the latest year for which figures are at present available, together with percentages of the estimated approximate value of work done based on 1946–47 as 100.


——
Trunk Roads
Classified Roads
Total
Estimated approximate value of work done based on 1946–47 = 100





£'000
£'000
£'000



1946–47
…
…
6,579
11,947
18,526
100


1947–48
…
…
7,272
13,517
20,789
99


1948–49
…
…
6,241
11,092
17,333
78


1949–50
…
…
6,868
12,977
19,845
86


1950–51
…
…
6,286
12,536
18,822
81


1951–52
…
…
8,082
16,507
24,589
91

The figures for trunk roads represent payments from the Road Fund while those for classified roads represent the proportion of the expenditure incurred by highway authorities which falls to be met out of the Road Fund.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to improving international relationships, he will extend an invitation to President Eisenhower and Prime Minister Malenkov to visit this country as guests of Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Lewis: asked the Prime Minister whether, with a view to improving international relationships, he will

Mr. Braithwaite: It is not a decision. I said that the proposal was being examined. The hon. and gallant Member will appreciate that at the moment no waiting at all is permitted.

Mr. Burden: Do these restrictions apply to pedestrian as well as vehicular traffic in Jermyn Street?

Maintenance Work

Mr. D. Jones: asked the Minister of Transport if he will publish in percentage form, and as the annual total cost to this Department, the amount of maintenance work done on the trunk and classified roads of the country, in each year from 1946–47 onward, and taking 1946–47 as 100 per cent.

Mr. Braithwaite: As the answer contains a number of figures, I will, with the hon. Member's permission, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

arrange for an exchange of Parliamentary delegations between this country, the United States of America and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics on a reciprocity basis.

The Minister of State (Mr. Selwyn Lloyd): I have been asked to reply. These suggestions will be borne in mind.

Mr. Lewis: May I say that on my own behalf, and, I am sure, on behalf of everyone in the House, we all regret the indisposition of the Prime Minister and hope


that after his rest he will be speedily restored to his normal self? Would it not be perhaps advantageous not only to carry out the suggestion contained in the first Question, but to change the venue of the Bermuda talks to London, which would be helpful to the Prime Minister and, as we hope, to subsequent four-Power talks?

Mr. Lloyd: I thank the hon. Member for his reference to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. So far as that suggestion is concerned, I would give it the same answer as I gave to his first two suggestions. It will be borne in mind.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If any such exchange of Parliamentary delegations at any time were to take place, would the House be right in assuming that Opposition Members would be fully represented, and would the Minister ask the Soviet that this matter be treated on a strict reciprocity basis?

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF DEFENCE (INFORMATION TO MEMBERS)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Prime Minister whether, owing to the absence of the Minister of Defence from the House of Commons, he will arrange for the Minister to address a meeting of hon. Members in a Committee room and furnish information on the work of his Department, including a survey of the activities and strength of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

The Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Harry Crookshank): I have been asked to reply. On 30th of January, 1952, my right hon. Friend informed the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition of the arrangements which would be made for dealing with defence questions in this House. Those arrangements have proved satisfactory and Her Majesty's Government see no reasons for modifying or supplementing them. If a debate on the particular topics referred to by the right hon. Gentleman is desired, the matter should be pursued through the usual channels.

Mr. Shinwell: Without any discourtesy to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Defence, is there any reason within logic or common sense why hon.

Members in this House should be precluded from hearing at first hand from the Minister of Defence or even from other overlord Ministers in another place, a statement on the work of their Departments? Is there any reason why we should be content merely to hear secondhand statements from the Parliamentary Secretary?

Mr. Crookshank: In the normal course of the formation of Governments, whether of Conservative or other complexion, certain Ministers are in another place and certain of them are here. Steps are taken to see that those who are in this House are fully capable and competent to deal with all matters affecting their Departments, which is, of course, the fact in this case.

Mr. Shinwell: It is precisely because it is not the case that I am asking that this innovation should be agreed to by the Government. Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that when the Labour Government were in office we were asked to adopt this idea? Now that it has been suggested, will the right hon. Gentleman, at any rate, give it consideration?

Mr. Crookshank: It is not very clear what the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. I have explained the present situation with regard to defence debates, and if the right hon. Gentleman refreshes his memory by referring to what my right hon. Friend said on that earlier occasion he will notice that the Prime Minister reserved the right to take part in all major matters dealing with defence in this House.

Mr. Shinwell: Does that not regrettably emphasise the present need for having the Minister of Defence, who knows all about these matters, in a Committee Room upstairs, where hon. Members on all sides of the House could ask him questions or, at any rate, hear about the activities of his Department?

Sir H. Williams: The right hon. Gentleman could ask him.

Mr. Crookshank: I quite see the point that the right hon. Gentleman opposite is making. I am trying to distinguish between any arrangements for formal Committees to be addressed by Ministers upstairs in substitution for debates or discussions—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am making a distinction between that and


any informal gatherings which might take place from time to time. The right hon. Gentleman and everybody else in the House knows that there are many ways of establishing contacts with Ministers without having to make special arrangements, as seem to be outlined in his Question.

Mr. Shinwell: I am sorry to press this matter, but do I understand from the right hon. Gentleman—I am grateful to him if I understand him aright—that if through the usual channels, a meeting of this kind, of an informal character, is arranged, the Government would raise no objection?

Mr. Crookshank: No. It has nothing to do with the usual channels. I was trying to make the distinction between what happens in this House, which is an arrangement of business arranged either between myself and the right hon. Gentleman's colleague on the Front Bench opposite or through the usual channels, and any sort of gatherings, of whatever nature, which might take place elsewhere.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOUTH KOREAN GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION)

Mr. A. J. Irvine: asked the Prime Minister why, in view of Mr. Rhee's defiance of the authority of the United Nations, Her Majesty's Government will not consider, in consultation with other member States of the United Nations, withdrawing recognition of the South Korean Government.

Mr. Selwyn Lloyd: I have been asked to reply. Her Majesty's Government do not consider that the course suggested by the hon. Member is the way to handle the present situation in South Korea.

Mr. Irvine: As the main objective is to ensure that the authority of the United Nations survives as an organisation which has successfully resisted and punished aggression, is it not extremely desirable that any State which flouts the authority of the United Nations should have action taken against it? As the South Korean Government have clearly done that, should not that action be taken in this instance, and is not the withdrawal of recognition the first step to be taken?

Mr. Lloyd: That is an argument which might very well have been used against the Chinese People's Government when

their aggression took place in Korea. We did not take that step because we regard recognition as being a matter of fact when a particular Government is in control of a country. It has nothing to do with whether we like it or not.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Would not the most effective measure now be to summon the Assembly of the United Nations to debate the situation? Will the Government consider that unless a truce is agreed on very soon?

Mr. Lloyd: I agree with the right hon. Member that unless arrangements are made within a certain period of time that course will, obviously, have to be taken.

Sir H. Williams: Must we not be careful to remember that the President of a friendly State still has some rights in his own country?

Oral Answers to Questions — TRANSPORT

1953 Act (Staff Compensation)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Transport when regulations governing staff compensation under the Transport Act, 1953, will be available.

Mr. Braithwaite: My right hon. Friend hopes to lay the draft regulations before both Houses of Parliament before the middle of July.

Mr. Hynd: Will the Minister remind his right hon. Friend of the undertaking given in the House on 17th November that the regulations would be publicised before the disposal of the road haulage vehicles started?

Mr. Braithwaite: Yes, I think that that will occur under these arrangements.

Severn Bridge

Mr. Benn: asked the Minister of Transport if he will grant permission for work to begin in the near future on the Severn bridge, in view of its importance to the West Country and the nation.

Mr. Braithwaite: I regret that I am unable to add anything to my right hon. Friend's answer of 23rd March last to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-East (Mr. Coldrick), of which I am sending the hon. Member a copy.

Mr. Benn: As the hon. Gentleman is as well aware as I am of the importance


attached to this matter in the West Country, will he try to prevail on his right hon. Friends in the Government to look at it again?

Mr. Braithwaite: As a colleague of the hon. Member in the representation of the City of Bristol, I am fully alive to the importance of this question.

Lieut.-Colonel Elliot: Will my hon. Friend remember that there are schemes of much greater priority, notably the Forth Road bridge, which should proceed before any suggestion of a Severn bridge is introduced?

Mr. Braithwaite: That shows the advisability of caution on the part of Ministers.

Mr. Beswick: Will the hon. Gentleman bear in mind the more important work of widening the Ruislip-Ickenham bridge?

Driving Tests, Surbiton and Isleworth

Mr. R. Harris: asked the Minister of Transport how many driving tests have been undertaken by the centres at Surbiton and Heath House, Isleworth, during the three months March, April and May, 1953; how many of such tests were taken by men and how many by women; how many men and how many women were failed at their first attempts; and what was the average waiting period at each centre between the application for a driving test and the holding of the test.

Mr. Braithwaite: I will let my hon. Friend have the information required in the first two parts of the Question as soon as it can be collated. I regret that information is not available in reply to the third part of the Question. I understand that the average time which has elapsed between applications for driving tests and the tests themselves has been about four weeks at these centres during March, April and May this year.

PRIME MINISTER'S ABSENCE (FOREIGN OFFICE DUTIES)

Mr. Attlee: Before asking the Chancellor of the Exchequer the Question of which I have given him Private Notice, may I express, on behalf of hon. Members on all sides of the House, our regret at the indisposition of the Prime Minister and our hope for his early recovery?
May I now ask the Chancellor whether he has any statement to make about the conduct of business during the Prime Minister's absence from the House.

Mr. C. Davies: Before the Chancellor replies, may I join in what has been said by the Leader of the Opposition? We all combine in earnestly wishing for a speedy return of the Prime Minister in his usual robust health.

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. R. A. Butler): The Prime Minister will hear with great satisfaction the very kind words of both right hon. Gentlemen, on behalf of their hon. Friends, and I will make a point of passing on their expression of sympathy to him.
The answer is as follows:
The House will have learned with regret that the Prime Minister has been advised to take a complete rest, and that the Bermuda conference has been postponed with the concurrence of the United States and French Governments. In order to maintain the impetus given to our foreign policy by the Bermuda proposal consultations are now proceeding for an early interim meeting of Ministers to discuss certain urgent problems of common concern. In that event, Her Majesty's Government will be represented at the meeting by my noble Friend the Lord President of the Council.
The Prime Minister will keep in close touch with events, but he will not be able to resume his full duties for at least a month. During that time he will have the assistance of the Lord President in matters of foreign policy, though the Minister of State will continue to be responsible for the day to day conduct of Foreign Office business.
The Leader of the House, the Lord Privy Seal, and I will share the responsibility for making any statements or answering any Questions in this House on matters of general Government policy.

Mr. Attlee: With regard to the Foreign Office during the absence of the Prime Minister, I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether he realises that this announcement causes us some disquiet? In one's experience the Foreign Office must be looked after either by the Foreign Secretary or by the Prime Minister, or by a Cabinet Minister deputed to do that work. Without the


slightest reflection on the Minister of State or the Under-Secretary, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he realises that the Foreign Office does require the close attention of a senior Minister all the time and that a kind of indirect and divided control—especially at times when foreign affairs are in such a fluid condition—seems to us unsatisfactory? Will it not be possible to have a Cabinet Minister definitely in control of the Foreign Office?

Mr. Butler: If the right hon. Member will refer to the terms of my reply he will see that the Prime Minister himself will be in touch with events and that he will have the assistance of my noble Friend the Lord President in matters of foreign policy. I think it would be hard to find a Minister of more experience in this sphere than the Lord President of the Council. Not only that, but the Foreign Office itself will be manned by the Minister of State and the two Under-Secretaries, one in this House and one in another place, who will themselves be responsible for the day to day transactions of the normal routine business. I should, therefore, have thought, with all possible respect and deference to the opinion of the right hon. Member, that the Foreign Office will be in exceedingly good hands and, as I have said, if there be a meeting the Lord President of the Council will attend that meeting and represent the Foreign Office and Her Majesty's Government.

Mr. Attlee: While I entirely appreciate the qualities of the Lord President of the Council, I should have thought that if the Prime Minister wanted a complete rest he should be free from coming to many decisions on foreign affairs. Is it not quite impossible for junior Ministers, however able, to give the kind of authoritative lead that is needed? It seems to me that the Lord President of the Council, in the position as stated, is in a very semi-detached position. If the Lord President of the Council is the right Minister, one would think that he should definitely be in charge of the Foreign Office while the Prime Minister and the Foreign Secretary are away ill so that there should be a responsible Cabinet Minister with close control throughout the whole time.

Mr. Butler: Perhaps the right hon. Member and hon. Members opposite have been confused by the form of the statement. I can assure them that the Lord President is not semi-detached in this matter at all. He has plunged straight into the foreign situation in which, incidentally, he was well versed before he took on the extra duty of assisting the Prime Minister. I think it would be a great pity if the Prime Minister were not available for matters of supreme urgency and importance to be referred to him. Apart from that I can assure the right hon. Member that there will be no confusion but that there will be the drive which he so much desires.

Mr. Attlee: I want to be quite clear. Obviously, the Prime Minister is always consulted on major matters of foreign policy. Will the Lord President be, in effect, acting Foreign Secretary?

Mr. Butler: The position will be as I have stated it, but the right hon. Member may feel satisfied that the Lord President of the Council will be the Cabinet Minister who is hourly in touch with foreign affairs, handling and transacting the business of foreign affairs and will so advise the Cabinet with the aid of the Minister of State.

Mr. A. Henderson: I asked the right hon. Gentleman last week who will answer Questions on foreign affairs which hitherto have been answered by the Prime Minister and the Lord Privy Seal promised that a statement would be made. Nothing has been included in the statement today about that. May I ask which senior Minister will answer Questions on foreign affairs which, previously, were addressed to and answered by the Prime Minister?

Mr. Butler: I think it would be as well if a statement were made clearing up the matter, which is obviously one of great importance. Normally, Foreign Office Questions can be put to the Minister of State, and addressed, therefore, to the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs. There may well be Questions which the House will desire to be answered either by myself or by the Lord Privy Seal. I think that we should make a statement to clear up the matter to the satisfaction of the House.

Mr. Bellenger: With reference to the projected meeting of Ministers, is it intended that they should meet at Bermuda or is it proposed that there should be some other location for the meeting; and has the right hon. Gentleman an early date in mind for such a meeting?

Mr. Butler: The answer to the latter part of the right hon. Gentleman's Question is, Yes, Sir. If such a meeting does materialise it will be in the very near future, and I hope it will. In regard to the location of the meeting, as consultations are just in the early stage and I cannot pledge other Governments, I should prefer to defer making a further statement until the consultations are concluded.

Mr. Callaghan: In reference to what the Chancellor has said about arrangements, will he, when considering the matter, remember that we have now only eight Cabinet Ministers responsible to the House of Commons who are on the active list, a lower proportion perhaps than for a long time; and when discussing future arrangements will he consider the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition that there should be a senior Minister who should not only give answers put into his mouth by somebody else but who should be directly responsible in this House to answer Questions by Members on international affairs in what is a very fluid and changing situation.

Mr. Butler: Without departing from what I have said about the qualities of those Ministers who will be in charge of the Foreign Office, my reply is that every possible consideration will be taken into account by the Government in order to serve the House to the best of our ability. May I also say that we shall take account of the unique qualities and capacities of the Ministers who sit on the Government Front Bench?

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Attlee: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he has any statement to make on business?

Mr. Crookshank: Yes, Sir. Following discussions which have taken place through the usual channels it is proposed to postpone consideration of the Motion relating to the Transfer of Functions (Ministry of Civil Aviation) Order which was announced in the business for tomorrow.

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Ordered,
That any Private Business set down for consideration at Seven o'clock this evening by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means may be taken after Nine o'clock, though opposed.—[Mr. Crookshank.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[16TH ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES, 1953–54

CLASS V MINISTRY OF LABOUR AND NATIONAL SERVICE

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £12,775,000, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1954, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Labour and National Service, including expenses in connection with the inspection of factories; grants to local authorities, associations and other bodies in respect of employment exchange and other services; expenses of training, transfer, rehabilitation and resettlement and in connection with national service; a grant in aid of the International Labour Organisation; expenses of the Industrial Court and the Industrial Disputes Tribunal; and sundry other services.

LABOUR ATTACHES

3.34 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: The part of the Vote to which I wish to ask the Committee to direct its immediate attention is that part which relates to the expenses of staffs overseas, and particularly labour attachés. As the Members of the Committee are probably aware, this matter has been referred to on several occasions in the last two years in particular, and the Opposition has now decided that the time has come to ask the Government to declare their views and intentions with regard to the future of this branch of the diplomatic service. But before I go into the details of the question, I should like the Members of the Committee to consider first of all the background of the position.
I think it will not be a surprise to hon. Members opposite that the Members of the Opposition have always considered that the members of the diplomatic corps overseas have always been recruited from far too narrow a section of the population. This was our contention before the war; it was our contention

while the war was on; it is still our contention today. In fact, during the war, in 1943 so wide a recognition had been given to this fact that the Foreign Office, probably under the stimulation of the Labour Members of the Coalition Government at the time, demanded that there should be a change in the method of recruitment in order that we might have a diplomatic corps more widely based drawn from all sections of the community and with rather more sensitive antennae to all the problems of society than were possessed by the more exclusive section that was normally recruited in the diplomatic corps. It fact, it used to be said of the British Foreign Office abroad that they consisted of very scholastically-trained gentlemen who could be insular in a number of different languages.
The statement which was issued in 1943 ought to be studied by hon. Members in all parts of the Committee because it forms, as it were, the source book for the present debate. It says this, in the rather tepid language which the Foreign Office uses when it criticises itself:
Among the criticisms which have been brought against the Diplomatic Service the view has been expressed that it is recruited from too small a circle, that it tends to represent the interests of certain sections of the nation rather than those of the country as a whole, that its members lead too sheltered a life, that they have insufficient understanding of economic and social questions"—
that is indeed a masterpiece of understatement—
that the extent of their experience is too small to enable them properly to understand many of the problems with which they ought to deal, and that the range of their contacts is too limited to allow them to acquire more than a relatively narrow acquaintance with the foreign peoples among whom they live.
If I had said that, I should be accused of preaching the class war.
The statement goes on to say:
These criticisms are often overstated and some of them have their origin in a misunderstanding of the functions of the Diplomatic Service. These functions are, broadly, to represent His Majesty's Government in foreign countries and to be their channel of communication with foreign Governments; ….
I shall not read any more of that because it is all very obvious.
The statement goes on, in paragraph 4, as follows:
It is, however, true that the conditions which the Diplomatic Service originally grew


up to meet no longer exist unchanged in modern international affairs. Economics and finance has become inextricably interwoven with politics; an understanding of social problems and labour movements is indispensable in forming a properly balanced judgment of world events. The modern diplomat should have a more intimate understanding of these special problems and greater opportunities to study them than he has usually possessed in the past. His training and experience must be wider.
The statement goes on to say that this will be the result of the reforms with which the White Paper dealt.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: What is the date of that?

Mr. Bevan: It is Miscellaneous No. 2 (1943) Cmd. 6420.
In view of these statements, it is difficult to understand the policy of the Government, because it was in order to correct these admitted deficiencies in the Foreign Service that labour attachés were created in the first place. It was accepted that it would not be possible for normal diplomats to acquire the wide experience necessary for this work. Therefore, it was thought wise to create a number of special attachés. Indeed, I believe it is admitted that it was my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition who was responsible for the appointment of the first labour attaché at Washington. We are quite convinced—I think few hon. Members would deny it—that the establishment and extension of this service of labour attachés abroad was to a very large extent the result of the pressure of the late Mr. Ernest Bevin.
The fact that we are now discussing the Ministry of Labour Vote and not the Foreign Office Vote is indicative of the special position occupied by these people. They are not regarded as a part of the normal diplomatic establishment. When I was at the Ministry of Labour I found considerable grumbling on the part of officials of that Department. I discovered that labour attachés abroad resented the fact that all the while the pukka diplomats were seeking to undermine their status. It is no use hon. Members denying it because, in point of fact, we were told all the while that, though these attachés have a special responsibility, the diplomats always sought to alter the hierarchy inside the embassies so that labour attachés would not have direct

access to the ambassador, but would be part of the staff, responsible to their immediate senior. It is no use hon. Members denying this, because they must not deny what hon. Members of the House say was their experience in their Ministerial capacity. I am sure that was also the experience of my right hon. Friend who followed me at the Ministry of Labour.
This attempt on the part of the Ministry of Labour to seek to bring the embassies abroad up to date was never popular with the Foreign Office and the members of diplomatic staffs overseas. There can be no doubt at all about the insularity of the staffs overseas. We had evidence of that before the war. For example, the present Chancellor of the Exchequer—who was then one of the Under-Secretaries of State at the Foreign Office—stated time after time in the House that they had found no evidence of Italian intervention in Spanish affairs. I am quite certain that the right hon. Gentleman would not mislead the House. The same thing was said by the present Foreign Secretary. They must have been relying upon the information coming from overseas, from Madrid and Barcelona. It is true that Italian intervention in Spanish affairs was very well known to everyone else, but it had not penetrated to the Foreign Office. There could be no better illustration of the ignorance of the diplomatic corps in a country of the character of Spain.
The great difficulty that they experience is that when they go to live in a foreign country they always move among those who have already arrived. Their social circle is always at the top, because usually their social circle here at home is at the top; and when they move from country to country they move from top to top. They move among the people who have been brought up in the same sort of way, who have the same frame of reference, the same system of association, the same social contacts, and the same expectations. It is of the utmost importance, if the Government are to be properly advised about what is happening abroad, that they be told about those who are on the way up, as well as about those who have arrived. Some, of course, are on the way up because they are being pushed up.
In other words, if we are to have a sensitive information service abroad it must contain individuals whose antennae are sensitised to catch the whispers of coming events. The trouble with diplomats abroad is that they are much more aware of events that are dying than events that are growing; and so over and over again we have found ourselves ill-informed about events.

Miss Jennie Lee: Korea.

Mr. Bevan: All we can go upon is what we have been told. I once more repeat that I hope we are not being told falsehoods from the Front Bench, that we are being told the truth, that the ignorance they express is not counterfeit ignorance but genuine to their character.
I remember an incident immediately after the war to show that they have not changed. An hon. Member of the House went to a foreign embassy and met one of the senior officials. In a social exchange he was told that, of course, there was only one Minister in the Labour Government who really mattered, and that was Mr. Bevin. It was an undiplomatic thing to say, because the person to whom he spoke was a Labour Member of the House and a relative of a Cabinet Minister. That was hardly an example of tact, but it transpired that the official did not know the names of the other members of the Cabinet. So there is an example of what was apparently a tactless remark based on genuine ignorance.
At the present time there is an upsurge taking place all over the world; an incursion into political life of a large mass of enfranchised people formerly shut out from political affairs; an increasing importance attached to economic affairs and a part being played in public affairs by obscure people, not great names at all but individuals who have been pushed up in this vast insurgence which is happening all over the world. It is surely, therefore, of the utmost importance that we should have in our embassies abroad people of like mind, people who can not only report home what they have found is going to happen, but who can approach the inhabitants of other countries and speak in the same language. I do not use that expression in the formal sense, but in the sense that they are speaking about the same things, that they are interested in labour and trade union

matters, and economic affairs. I do not mean someone who almost takes pride in his patrician ignorance of such mundane matters.
It seems to us that here we have an illustration of how the Conservative administration once more is reverting to its old form. Let us see what has happened. In December, 1945, there were nine labour attachés. It may be at once admitted that the reason for the small number from 1944 to 1945 was that many embassies abroad were closed to us. As they opened up, the possibility of sending more labour attachés grew. In 1946 there were 14; in 1947, 19; in 1948, 21; in 1949, 21. Then the figure reached the peak in 1950, at 22. Today there are 17. Far from their number being reduced, it is our view that they ought to be increased. They could quite easily be increased—if the Government wanted to save money—at the expense of other members of the diplomatic corps because it would be easy to identify a number of unnecessary ornaments.
The functions of labour attachés are to advise the heads of the diplomatic missions to which they are appointed; to ensure that Her Majesty's Government are kept fully informed of all important developments within their sphere of interests; and to make available information on British policy, practice and developments within their sphere of interests. In other words, their duty is not only to inform the Foreign Ministry here of what is happening there but also to inform people there of what is happening here. That is an exceedingly valuable function.
It is very difficult to see how the second function can be performed unless we have men of special interests. I am very sorry that the Minister of Labour, who we all know has great personal charm, has not been able to exercise more leverage on his colleagues in this matter. He has suffered a serious Ministerial defeat. We on this side would like to help him. In fact, it is probably correct to say that unless we had weighed in earlier the number of 17 would have been smaller still; but I think that we have arrested the rot. Perhaps when the Minister replies he will not express complacency. I do not expect him to criticise his colleagues, but I expect him to realise that we are trying to help him in a very difficult situation.
These five attachés were withdrawn from China, in 1951—we can all understand that—Peru, in May of that year; Poland, in 1952; Venezuela, in December, 1952; Holland, in January, 1953; and Denmark in March of this year.

Mr. Raymond Gower: That is six, not five.

Mr. Bevan: I am not sure about the last one. The Minister of Labour might be able to tell us whether any more are intended to be withdrawn. A great difficulty is that Venezuela, Ecuador, Colombia and Bolivia were formerly covered from Venezuela, and these countries are no longer served by any labour attaché at all. This is a volcanic part of the world. It is always in eruption. One would have thought that of all places it was necessary to have somebody there because new things are happening all the time and always taking us by surprise—not only us but people there as well. One would have thought that this was a part of the world about which we ought to have some intimate information; but the attaché was withdrawn.
It seems to us to be extremely foolish to expect such large areas to be covered by one man. Indeed, I would go so far as to say that if we are to have a labour attaché with the responsibility of too many countries, it is a waste of money. He is useful only if his knowledge is intimate and immediate. He is not of much use if his information is merely a resumé of what has happened there in the last six months to a year. It is very much more important for us to know what are the movements of opinion, what are the currents, what are the possibilities.
I do not want to be invidious, but I know of some labour attachés whose work has been of the utmost significance. I used to meet them at the Ministry of Labour from time to time. I assure hon. Members that they are a very fine body of men. They are men of catholic experience and wide sympathies. They are very valuable public servants. It would be a mutilation of our Foreign Service if their number were reduced any more.
Let us consider the picture. The primary country—that is the country where the labour attaché is situated—Argentine, has to deal not only with Argentine but with Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay. There is an attaché in Austria.

The primary country of Belgium has to deal with Luxembourg and Holland. There is not very much difficulty there. Egypt has to deal with Ethiopia, Iraq, Jordan, Lebanon, Lybia, the Persian Gulf, Saudi Arabia, Sudan and Syria. This seems to be foolish. There is more eruption in the Middle East than in any other part of the world.
The charge that has been brought against the British Foreign Office in the Middle East has been that of too close an identification with mediaeval survival and not sufficient affinity with the masses. Perhaps it might be said that the many mistakes that we have made there—and admittedly we have made a number—have been due to the fact that we have not had sufficiently intimate intimation of the movement of mass opinion. It seems absolutely astonishing that all these countries should be served by the one labour attaché for Egypt.
Then we come to the others. We have an attaché in Finland, France, Greece, India, Israel, Italy, Japan and Mexico. The attaché in Mexico serves Costa Rica, Cuba, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama and Venezuela. The labour attaché in South-East Asia serves Burma, Indonesia, Siam and Indo-China. What an absurd picture this presents at a time when the vital interests of Great Britain are bound up in what is happening in these countries and in a proper assessment of the upsurge of social movement in those countries which is more important today than at any time in our history. We have one attaché in Spain, one in Sweden and one in the United States of America.
I do not wish to delay the Committee. I think that I have said sufficient to establish the importance of this question and the extent to which the Government are neglecting it. This is pinchbeck economy. This is economy in the wrong places. Here is a reduction of a very small sum in the Vote made where it can do most damage to our vital interests. I suggest that this is not because hon. Members in all parts of the Committee are not convinced of the importance of labour attachés but because a feud between the Ministry of Labour and the Foreign Office has resulted in a victory for the Foreign Office. That is why we on this


side are anxious to hear from the Minister of Labour that the cuts are to be restored and the service extended.

4.0 p.m.

The Minister of Labour (Sir Walter Monckton): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) was right in thinking that he would not have to persuade me of the value of the service which is under discussion today. He may think that I have achieved insufficient success in this direction since I have been in office, but I assure him that the feud has not been between me and the Foreign Office. I have found them to understand my point of view very well. I hope that by the time I sit down I shall have satisfied some hon. Members that we have perhaps exercised not so little leverage as the right hon. Gentleman feared.
I should like, first of all, to be sure that we get clearly in our minds what it is that this labour attaché service was meant to do and what it does. The right hon. Gentleman opposite quite rightly said what its functions were. The origin of the service was in September, 1942, when we first appointed a labour attaché in Washington, and the purpose was to promote contacts on matters of labour policy with the Government of the United States, to establish a relationship with workers' and employers' organisations in the United States and with other organisations and institutions concerned with industrial and social questions.
I think the idea behind it was that, not merely for the purposes of the war but after the war, in considering international labour and social problems, they would be of value in these contacts. Therefore, with the functions to which the right hon. Gentleman has already drawn the attention of the Committee, the first appointment was made.
We know that the principal task of these labour attachés lies in providing advice to the ministers and ambassadors whom they serve, but they also provide a kind of two-way traffic in making clear to people over there what our labour practices and problems are and informing us what they are in other countries. Her Majesty's Government are fully persuaded of the value of this work, and we intend that it shall continue.
The contact with Governments is important enough, but the contact with employers and trade unions is somewhat similar, as I found, to the sort of contact I was having in Geneva a week ago, where we got the situation in which Governments, employers and trade unions met in a field in which they could discuss common problems. I value these contacts, both here and through the labour attaché service, but I would add—and I think that here both the right hon. Gentleman opposite and also the right hon. Gentleman who succeeded him will agree with me—that the value of the work of the labour attachés is considerably increased by the fact that the people appointed to these posts are people who have had very considerable experience in industrial relations in the Ministry of Labour and National Service.
I say this for the reason that, for a short time, I felt a little uncomfortable when the right hon. Gentleman was speaking because I was one of these recruits to the Foreign Service, though on a temporary basis, during the war. I became a Deputy Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, but I was not much employed in that capacity, though I held the office. Therefore, I am not anxious to subscribe to criticisms of the Foreign Service, because I do know that many ambassadors have made clear to me, and no doubt to my predecessors, the value of the work of these labour attachés.
I am bound to say that, as far as my contacts with Ministers in the Foreign Office are concerned, I have not found this matter so unpopular as the right hon. Gentleman opposite seemed to fear I might have done. It may have been the charm, but I do not think it is. I would add that, quite apart from the praise of ambassadors for the work done by this service, I have taken steps to acquaint myself with the work going on at these centres, and I am quite sure that the work which has been done in France, Italy and Spain has been worth while. I have lost a private secretary, who also served both right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and who has now gone to serve as labour attaché in Italy, not because of his experience of administrative work in the private office of the Ministry of Labour, but because of his experience of industrial relations in the


Ministry. I have now got someone to replace him who was our labour attaché in Brussels, a post which was not regarded as wholly unimportant in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman today.
If someone said to me, "What do you think most important of all the functions which labour attachés are called upon to perform?" I should say that it is to cement friendships on a new level in the countries to which they are appointed. I think it is right to say that they have to operate on different levels from some of those of the people who represent this country in other capacities. When we are told that in the past our information from Spain has been inadequate, I hope I may draw comfort from the fact that, in spite of all difficulties and differences, we have at this moment a labour attaché in that country.
The service is appreciated and will go on. What one has to do, in this as in other directions, is to provide an effective and efficient service with such economy as we can, in the present state of the nation's finances. It is all very well to say, as the right hon. Gentleman opposite said, that there are various ornaments we could do away with. If there are some who are ornamental, we can dispense with them, but we have to look at the service and see whether there are any economies that can be achieved. If there are, we have to achieve them. We believe that these labour attachés are necessary and we would like to see them proliferate, but we have to retain some sense of proportion in this matter.
I come now to the question of the difficulties and differences mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman. We have now 17 labour attachés covering 46 countries in all. In regard to the five who have gone—the labour attaché in Peru had gone before, and does not come into this discussion—there remain those to China and Poland. The one in China finished in February, 1951, while the attaché in Poland was not replaced when the post became vacant in May, 1952; and my view—though this is a matter for the Committee—is that it is extremely doubtful whether in existing circumstances there is scope for effective work by labour attachés in these two places. The countries in which there have been some

recent changes are Denmark, Holland and Venezuela, which are the only other countries in which during the lifetime of this Government there has been any suspension of labour attachés.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman amplify what he said about Poland, which seems to some of us to be the perfect example of a country where a labour attaché could perform extremely useful service?

Sir W. Monckton: If the hon. Gentleman wants to develop that, I hope he will be able to do so; but as far as China is concerned, I should have thought that the conditions which prevail there make it extremely doubtful whether it could be done. In regard to Poland, I think there is great room for doubt whether the money spent on a labour attaché in present conditions would be well spent, but if the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. Irvine) wants to develop that, I am quite sure that he will have the opportunity.
I have to deal with the crux of the matter—the three other countries of Denmark, Holland and Venezuela. I am reluctant to see even this suspension of labour attachés, and it has not been done without the fullest consideration between all the Ministers concerned, including not only myself but the Foreign Secretary and those responsible for our finances. In all these cases, steps have been taken to see that as far as possible the work will go on from another centre. To take the case of Denmark, we have a labour attaché in Sweden who is at Stockholm, and since April, 1953, he has been combining the work in both countries from that centre.

Mr. M. Follick: And Norway?

Sir W. Monckton: No, not Norway. Similarly, in Holland the change in regard to the attaché at The Hague was made in January, 1953. We do need to keep a sense of proportion in this matter. It is true that there has been a reduction from 20 to 17, apart from China and Poland, but steps were taken in all cases to try to cover the work. It is much too soon to say that the experiment will not succeed. I think we would all concede that, with modern methods of communication and means of travel, it may well be possible to work quite satisfactorily a


labour attaché service from Stockholm to deal with Denmark and from Brussels to deal with Holland as well as Luxembourg.

Mr. Denis Healey: Is it not the case that the Swedish Labour attaché also covers Norway as well as Denmark?

Sir W. Monckton: I will check that and will correct myself if I am wrong, but I think not.
What I am anxious to put before the Committee is that it is not the case that it was not until now that we had a post in one country covering a number of other countries. What is happening in Egypt has been happening for a considerable time. Ten countries in all are covered from that centre.
I have taken pains to become acquainted with the work of the labour attaché in Egypt and I do not suppose there is any other country where the work of a labour attaché has been more satisfactorily and effectively done. Of course, when I am trying to exercise a little leverage, I do not overlook the assistant labour attachés. We still have our assistant labour attachés in Cairo as we have in the United States, in San Francisco and Chicago, and in Paris and elsewhere. We must not overlook the fact that we have experience, not only in South America, but also in the Middle East, of work being effectively done over a considerable area under the present system.
Therefore, I am entitled to say that though—if we exclude China and Poland—there has been this drop of three posts down to 17, we are effectively covering 46 countries. We shall see whether this experiment succeeds. In modern conditions, however, we have to try to match effective working with economic working. I am able to satisfy the Committee that the labour attachés are getting the proper assistance because none of the assistant labour attachés has been suspended or their numbers reduced.

Mr. James Hudson: Will the Minister state from where Venezuela is being covered?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes, from Mexico. It is quite true that Mexico covers a number of countries, and that has always been so.

Mr. Bevan: Because it was so while these labour attachés were being trained and the whole staff was being built up, it does not mean that this is a desirable experiment, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman is trying most insidiously to present it to the Committee. It is an expedient which has been introduced because the right hon. and learned Gentleman was forced to economise.

Sir W. Monckton: I think I am entitled to say that I was not the author of the scheme; I inherited it. It is not only under my guidance that we have had many countries covered from one centre. I hope that the Committee will agree that the economies made have been consistent with the effective continuance of the service. These economies are of a comparatively small kind. We shall watch to see whether they still enable the service to be effective. It is too soon to judge now.
The Government have continued to keep this matter under constant review in order that we may judge from time to time what can be afforded and also what is needed in order that the service may be effectively continued. I know that this is a matter which has been of great interest to the Trades Union Congress. I have kept in touch with them about it, and they know that if any additions are contemplated to the list of suspensions those additions will not be put into force without their having an opportunity of expressing their views upon the matter. It is an experiment and an attempt to continue an effective service in the face of the economies forced upon us by the national stringency in which we live.

Mr. Bevan: May I ask for some elucidation of the right hon. and learned Gentleman's last statement? He said that before any further suspension occurred—"suspension" in this case being the polite word for "removal"—the Trades Union Congress would be consulted. What about Parliament?

Sir W. Monckton: Yes. The last thing in the world that I would wish is that this should happen behind the back of anybody. All I was saying was that we have been specifically asked to discuss the matter with the T.U.C. I said I would, but the matter would still come before Parliament.
It is not enough merely to complain that three labour attachés have gone until it is shown that the work cannot effectively be done with that measure of reduction. I ask the Committee to appreciate that such leverage as there is has been exerted, is being exerted and will be exerted.

Mr. Alfred Robens: Is it in the Government's mind to reduce the staff of the labour attachés still further, or can the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an undertaking that there will be no further reductions at all?

Sir W. Monckton: I am certainly not in the position to give an undertaking that there will be no reductions from now onwards. All I can say is that we have had these discussions over the period that I have been in office. This is how the position stands at present, and, so far as I know, there is no contemplation of an immediate reduction or suspension of any other posts. There have been posts under consideration, and we shall always have to review them.
It may be that in a particular country we shall find that the service is no longer justified, in which case it would be our duty to say that it was no longer justified, or again, the position may get so much worse financially that we cannot afford to do what we are doing now. I think I have said enough to demonstrate that we are maintaining this service effectively and that the reduction which has taken place, consistent with economy, does not impair the efficiency of the service.

Mr. Bevan: Are we to have a further statement from the Government? I do not think we can leave the matter where the right hon. and learned Gentleman has left it. Is anybody else going to speak for the Government tonight?

Sir W. Monckton: That depends on the course of the debate. I thought it convenient to state the position, but the debate will demonstrate whether it becomes necessary to have a further statement from the Government.

Mr. Ivor Owen Thomas: The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that contact had been made with the T.U.C. to secure their observations in regard to any proposed reduction in the number of labour attachés. Can he say whether that step was taken before the

reduction in numbers which he has mentioned was made, and if so, what were the observations received from the T.U.C.?

Sir W. Monckton: I do not think I can be asked to deal with that point. It was not I who approached the T.U.C., but the T.U.C. who approached me when some reductions were made, and asked that, if further reductions were contemplated, I would consult with them. As is my practice, I said I would.

4.19 p.m.

Mr. Maurice Edelmnan: I always find a certain difficulty in attacking the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Minister of Labour. His good will is obvious, his amiability has an immediate effect, and he has shown that he is prepared to discharge his Departmental duties by consulting the T.U.C. about any steps he may take in connection with the labour attachés. But, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) has shown, the matter is much more than a Departmental matter.

This question of labour attachés goes to the whole root of our foreign representation. Indeed, it is significant that those who wish to reduce the number of labour attachés in the spurious interest of economy are precisely those who wish to cut down our contribution to U.N.E.S.C.O. and to the services of the British Council and to limit our contribution to the Save the Children Fund. In fact, they may be described as eligible candidates for the International Society of Book Burners.

If we consider the history of labour attachés we see how they sprang directly from a desire which was apparent in the House during the Coalition Government to reform the whole of the Foreign Service. It was not coincidental that the first labour attaché was sent to the United States during the war. The reason was that the pressure of events had made it clear that if we were to win the war we would have to associate with us the American labour movement. It was an immediate and practical step to send a labour attaché to the United States. The principle was accepted and became a precedent. From the document on Reform of the Foreign Service, which was


quoted by my right hon. Friend, I wish to read one short extract. It is:
It is said that economics and finance have become inextricably woven with politics. An understanding of social problems and labour movements is indispensable in forming a properly balanced judgment of world events.
That was something novel which, in the history of official diplomacy, had not been accepted as a principle by this Government or by their supporters. When the war ended, there was some attempt to enlarge the scope of the Foreign Service and to get away from dynastic diplomacy. It was recognised that what was important in the foriegn relations between one country and another was not simply the activities of a few families at the top, as my right hon. Friend has said, but the opinion of the great mass of the people overseas who had, in the most literal sense, become the ruling classes in the democracies which had been created.

I speak of real democracies and not of the so-called totalitarian democracies. I mean the real democracies which had escaped totalitarianism and the other formerly democratic countries who, having escaped from occupation, had returned to democracy. It was natural that the late Mr. Ernest Bevin appointed a labour attaché to Italy, and one of his first tasks was to get into touch with the Italian labour movement in order to help in the reconstruction of the Italian trade unions. Everyone who knows the great work done by Mr. Brain will know that the re-creation of the Italian trade union movement was in large measure due to his efforts.

What happened? My right hon. Friend said during his speech that the new labour attachés, these new diplomatic representatives, were immediately the object of the jealousy of the professional diplomats. I do not say all, but it is undoubted that there were many professional diplomats who resented deeply this intrusion of men who had not been through the formal diplomatic training customary in the Foreign Service but had been appointed in order to keep the Government of the day informed of what was going on abroad and to keep those abroad informed of what was going on in our country.

In those days there were many in the established diplomatic and foreign services who were not only lacking in sympathy with Labour Governments of

the time in their personal, private business, on which one would not seek to reproach them; but in their public appearances and public activities many showed not only indifference but, in practice, actual contempt for the Government which at that time they purported to represent. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I shall be delighted, as I see the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is here, to give him instances by way of illustration, either now or privately. I think it would be more appropriate to do it privately.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Anthony Nutting): The hon. Gentleman has made a very serious charge indeed, that members of the diplomatic service in the days of the Labour Government showed contempt—I think I have it correctly—for the Government which they represented, in public, deliberately and on purpose. I really think that an hon. Gentleman who makes statements of that kind must either substantiate them or withdraw them.

Mr. Bevan: I gave one instance in my statement of where a senior member of the diplomatic corps at an embassy function expressed his almost contempt for particular members of the Cabinet by selecting one for praise and suggesting that none of the others were any good. He could not speak more disrespectfully of the Government, could he?

Mr. E. H. C. Leather: Surely the right hon. Gentleman said that that was a foreign diplomat?

Mr. Bevan: No, I said he was one of our senior diplomats at an embassy function of our own who used those words.

Mr. Edelman: I have no intention of withdrawing what I said. On the contrary, it is my wish—but not now, because it might not be fair to the diplomat concerned—in private to substantiate what I said to the hon. Gentleman who rose to challenge my statement. My hon. Friends may wish me to give the illustration which I have in mind, but I am reluctant to do so because I do not believe that it would be fair at this moment to give the example and the name of the diplomat who would be the object of my charge.

Mr. Nutting: If the hon. Gentleman does not think it fair to give it, does he think it fair to make the allegation?

Mr. Edelman: Certainly, because I was stating a general principle. Perhaps I may correct something said by the Joint Under-Secretary of State. He said that I spoke generally of our foreign representatives. I said some foreign representatives. He will see that in HANSARD tomorrow. I am glad he said that, because in the report of the Foreign Service, which has already been quoted, the following statement is made:
The art of diplomacy consists in making the policy of His Majesty's Government of the time, whatever it may be, understood and if possible accepted by other countries.
That is from Cmd. 6420 "Proposals for the Reform of the Foreign Service."
In order to do that, one of the steps which were taken by the Foreign Secretary at the time was to try to strengthen the status and raise the prestige of the labour attachés. I know that in the case of the labour attaché in Italy in 1946, it was Mr. Bevin's intention to try to establish a direct channel of communication in order that he might be apprised of what was going on in that country in the Italian trade union movement. There was the professional jealousy which I have already mentioned, and there was resistance to the endeavours of the labour attaché at the time not only to give the Government information of what was going on but resentment at the fact that he was in intimate contact with the Italian trade union movement.
The result, as we know, was that, instead of the Italian trade union movement being constantly influenced by the democratic example of our trade union movement, and of our Government, as urged by our labour attaché on the spot, the Italian labour movement came almost wholly under Communist influence. Today the position within the trade unions is one in which democratic trade unionists are at a serious disadvantage simply because the Communist trade unionists, with encouragement and backing from outside, have been able to dominate the trade union scene.

Mr. G. B. Drayson: Is not the hon. Gentleman suggesting that the function of the labour attaché is to reorganise the trade unions in the country to which he is accredited?

Mr. Edelman: No. I say that the function of the labour attaché is to give whatever information may be desired about the trade unions in his country in order that any trade unions overseas who seek to reorganise themselves on the pattern and example of the trade unions of this country may have the guidance which they seek. That, in fact, is what happened originally in Italy but, and this is precisely my point, it was because of the desire of the diplomatic service to limit and restrict the function of the labour attaché that our labour attaché there, who had begun so well, was not allowed to develop and extend his work.

Mr. Drayson: This is very serious. Is the hon. Member aware that we were required by the Italian Government to limit the activities of the labour attaché in Milan and that is why his work was cut down?

Mr. Edelman: That may very well be. I do not doubt that for a moment. My straightforward and simple point is that the Government of the day in this country should raise the prestige and encourage the activities of our labour attachés overseas in order that they can keep in intimate contact with foreign trade union movements and encourage and help them.
What is true of Italy is also true of France. There the trade union movement has unhappily fallen into hands of the Communists. Instead of the trade union movement of our nearest neighbour being influenced and assisted by the example of the trade union movement in this country, that too has fallen into the hands of the Communists. It is part of my argument that we should do whatever lies in our power to fertilise the Foreign Service with new men and new thought.
The day has long gone when palace revolutions and the intrigues which circulated round the prince or junta were decisive in determining the nature of the Government. Those days have gone. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about Moscow?"]. I am quite prepared in digression to consider that point, but even in Moscow the fact that Stalin died has not meant a radical revolution in the country as a whole. Moscow continues. It is for that reason that I urge that we must have men who are in the closest contact with popular movements abroad


and those men can only be the labour attachés in whose fate the Minister of Labour is in part acquiescing.
Although so far I have been talking of diplomacy in the higher level, it is well known that there are overseas many diplomatic representatives at consular level who often suffer from an ailment known as "consulitis." It is an ailment arising from the fact that they have been a long time abroad. They have not been refreshed by renewing their acquaintance with the scene at home and, consequently, through this separation they are divorced from contemporary society at home in Britain. That is why there was a great gap, which was most noticeable when the Labour Government were in power, between their understanding of what was going on in this country and the reality of the great social revolution which had been taking place in Great Britain.

The question before the Committee is whether this Government are really in earnest when they pay lip service to the principles which were enunciated in the White Paper on the reform of the Foreign Service, or whether they are really determined to turn the clock back and imagine, for this is purely illusory, that we can go back to the time when diplomacy was merely something determined between the aristocracy of one country and the aristocracy of another.

Mr. Gower: Would the hon. Member establish all that from what the Minister has described as a moderate curtailment for very necessary reasons of economy?

Mr. Edelman: Certainly, I regard the curtailment as a symptom of an evil disease, as expressing the derangement which exists in the mind of the Government on this question of our overseas representation.
There is still going on a great struggle for men's minds not only in Europe but throughout the world. One of the most appalling things that we heard this afternoon was not just the fact that in Europe there had been a reduction in the number of labour attachés, but the fact that overseas, particularly in Asia, now at the moment when the pressure put on by the Communists is greater than it ever has been, at this very moment when the struggle for the mind for Asia is being intensified, there should be this malevolent decision to reduce the number of labour attachés. It is shameful.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman put up an adequate reply for his Department, but this matter is something which goes far beyond a Departmental issue. It is representative of the whole outlook of the Government, of the outlook which has already made such deep wounds in the social progress of this country. I hope that the Government will not persist in the error of their ways and deepen the greater wound which they are inflicting on Europe and Asia.

4.36 p.m.

Mr. E. H. C. Leather: If this debate serves to do no more than publicise and concentrate interest upon the work of labour attachés it will have served a very useful purpose. There is nothing to argue about on either side of the Committee on the value of the work that they are doing, the desire that it should continue and the hope that it certainly will not be curtailed. I do not think that there has been any legitimate difference of opinion across the Floor of the Committee yet.
The process of self-criticism, which seems to be so popular in Left-Wing circles these days, I have seldom heard carried further than it has been this afternoon. Every single defect of which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) have complained were things that happened or did not happen when they were in power. The main criticisms concerned South-East Asia and the Middle East. The hon. Member for Coventry, North said how scandalous was the state of affairs there.
But this great "volcanic eruption," if I quote the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale rightly, took place some considerable time before my right hon. and learned Friend went to the Ministry of Labour. It took place during the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale was at the Ministry of Labour, and surely there was a very good case at that time for increasing the number of attachés in South-East Asia and the Middle East. But the right hon. Gentleman did not do it. We on this side of the Committee have not cut them down in South-East Asia or the Middle East.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Member is introducing a polemical note into an otherwise peaceful discussion. It could hardly be said that the upsurge in South-East Asia occurred when I was at the Ministry of Labour. I forget how many months I was there. It spread over a slightly wider period than that; and even for the purposes of polemics the hon. Member ought not to commit so many outrages against history.

Mr. Leather: I apologise humbly to the right hon. Gentleman. I made the mistake of assuming that he sometimes shares the responsibility of his Cabinet colleagues, but apparently he does not. The right hon. Gentleman told us that he spoke from experience, and he told a long and bitter story of his feud with the Foreign Office. I have no doubt that when he was Minister of Labour and his right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, South (Mr. H. Morrison) was at the Foreign Office there was a feud, but there is certainly no evidence of any feud now between my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour and my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary. Certainly no evidence of it has been produced this afternoon.
There are only three cases, with which my right hon. and learned Friend has dealt—Venezuela, Holland and Denmark—and it is clear to anyone that these economies can be effected and the work can be carried on with a saving of money without damaging the Service in any way. That is the only valid point of criticism which the Opposition can make against my right hon. and learned Friend. All this talk about South-East Asia and the Middle East is quite unjustified, because the conditions there remain as they were when the party opposite were in power. There have been no reductions. If hon. Members opposite wish to carry this process of self-criticism further, I shall be happy to listen.

Mr. Percy Daines: The main case put forward by the Minister is on the grounds of economy. Can the hon. Gentleman tell us whether similar economies have been effected in other parts of the diplomatic service?

Mr. Leather: I am sure that if they have, the hon. Gentleman will be aware

of them. In any case, if I pursue that subject I shall be called to order. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because we do not happen to be discussing the diplomatic service. We are discussing labour attachés. The question of general economies in the diplomatic service can be dealt with at the right time.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: In order to relieve the hon. Gentleman of the embarrassment of developing an argument which I am sure he is bursting to develop, may I ask, Sir Charles, if it would be out of order to discuss whether any other economies have been practised in the diplomatic service?

Mr. Osborne: Further to that point of order——

The Chairman: Order. I cannot answer a hypothetical question.

Mr. Bevan: In order to assist the Committee, I submit that to show whether this Service has been disadvantaged or not or whether it has been sought out quite capriciously for reductions as against other Services, it would be quite in order to show whether there have or have not been similar analogous reductions in other parts of the diplomatic service.

The Chairman: I think a reasonable argument can be employed. I will stop anything which I think is out of order.

Mr. Leather: I promised to be brief. My last word on that subject is that my hon. Friends and I are satisfied that the days of capricious action on the part of the Ministry of Labour ceased when the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) ceased to be Minister of Labour.
I only wish to put one other point to my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour whose case surely is obvious and unanswerable. On this question of the further possibility of reduction, I ask him to bear in mind the weight of opinion which is behind him on these benches in resisting any such incursions in the cause of economy or anything else. I hope that before this debate is over either he or the Parliamentary Secretary will deny rumours which are current that economies are


contemplated amongst the assistant attachés in various parts of the United States. I believe that the rumours are not true, but I hope that we may have that confirmation from the Minister before this discussion concludes. If this debate denies that rumour and gives a general wider understanding of the excellent and devoted work that these men have done and are doing, it will have served a useful purpose and it will certainly have served completely to vindicate my right hon. and learned Friend, the most successful Minister of Labour since Ernest Bevin.

4.44 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I am bound to agree with the hon. Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) in that this debate serves to focus attention on a matter of tremendous importance, and that is the position of our labour attachés and assistant labour attachés in various parts of the world.
I would not agree with the hon. Member in his references to the actions of the Labour Government, because obviously that was a period of development. It was a period of experiment the results of which were ample justification for the decision which was originally taken by the man whom I regard as the greatest Labour Minister we have had in this country, the late Ernest Bevin, who did such a magnificent job and started this whole experiment which was continued by the Labour Government.
It was developed to the point where we had some 22 labour attachés in various countries in the world. What we are discussing today is not that experimental period. We are not discussing expansion. At the moment we are discussing contraction—contracting from these 22 who were appointed, down to the 17 that we have today—and the fear that this desire for economy might go beyond the five and indeed might be continued throughout the rest of the embassies where we have these labour attachés appointed.
The work of these people is of paramount importance to this country at this time when we see developments going on all over the world which have been so well described by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan).

I was rather sorry that the Minister did not tell us how much he expects to save as a result of cutting down from 22 to 17. Recently I saw some figures which led me to believe that as a result of his action he was going to save something in the nature of £40,000 a year.

Sir W. Monckton: It is in the order of £30,000.

Mr. Champion: Then the figure that I was given was something of an exaggeration. It is a trifling sum, and it is being saved at the expense of a great service. It is a derisory saving when we realise the expenditure that we are making in connection with the prosecution of possible future wars and when we remember that this service may do much to prevent a future war. Here we are saving £30,000. It is something like one-eighth of the cost of a big bomber. We are going to save that in a service of this sort.
I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman, after his experience in the Ministry where he has performed an excellent service, must realise that the trade unions are playing an increasingly important part in every democratic country in the world. They are not now only participating in the ordinary job of the trade unions as we used to understand it, but more and more are they participating in supporting and advising the Government in urgent matters of foreign affairs and so on. He will know of the work in the United States of America of the C.I.O. and the A.F. of L. Both of those trade union organisations have been leading protagonists of Truman's Fourth Point, a point which I hope is not going to be dropped but rather sustained because of the great necessity for it.
If these trade unions can do that and if we can do anything here to help them in that respect, we shall certainly be doing a first-class job of work. Ernest Bevin not only saw the way in which these trade unions were developing and the increasing part that they were playing in foreign affairs, but he did something to help, and that was by appointing these labour attachés. Having seen, he acted.
There was at first, I agree, some suspicion of these labour attachés in the various embassies. These people, in the


main, had a different social standing from that of many of the people who at that time occupied the embassies of Great Britain throughout the world. But I would say, in fairness to those people who occupied those positions at that time, that eventually they came to recognise the value and importance of these labour attachés to this country. Having met and talked to some of them about the work of these labour attachés, I have received their assurance that they do value the work which those labour attachés are doing.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that we have 17 labour attachés covering the work of 40 countries. That is almost derisory. As he rightly said, this making of contacts is a two-way traffic. It is not merely a question of our people giving information, but also of their receiving information from the people of other countries. If they are not in daily contact with these people, much of the value of the work of labour attachés or assistant labour attachés is inevitably lost. If they have to make occasional trips to a country by aeroplane they are not able to establish real contacts with the sort of people they ought to be meeting.
I have had some little experience here. I had the good fortune to investigate labour relations with Norway a short time ago. I found that this work was something of tremendous value, not merely to the Norwegians or to trade unionists over there but also to us, in the creation of a better understanding between two great democratic countries. Investigation in Denmark enforced that opinion, and on a lecture tour in the United States of America, where I met labour attachés and assistant labour attachés, I found what an advantage it was that there were people there who were able to meet trade unionists and talk in a language which trade unionists of all countries can understand.
They did not talk merely in terms of "Mr. This" or "The honourable Somebody or other" but in terms of "Bill," "Joe," "Tom," and "Dick." That is the level which anyone wishing to secure close understanding and contact will find of tremendous value. They were also able to talk in the trade union jargon which is common to us all. It seems that

every group of people has a certain jargon which becomes understandable over international frontiers. This applies to trade unions, and the jargon is spoken by the labour attachés, particularly those who have had long experience in the Ministry of Labour and, perhaps to an even greater extent, those whose whole background is connected with trade unions.
I would press for more labour attachés, but if we cannot have more do not let us lose those we have. We want someone on the spot who is trusted, and who can give the answers to some of the questions which are raised. I think of the United States of America in this connection, where there are a lot of people who still think in terms of Communist-Party-dominated trade unions over here. If people know the state of affairs from the inside they can answer that sort of question in the sort of language which is understood. But we also want people who can give information about the working of our democracy, and here these people can be front-rank leaders in the struggle to present the British way of life to people overseas.
When I talk about the British way of life I am not thinking, as do some people abroad, in terms of a bunch of Colonel Blimp imperialists, or a tired, effete people—a people on the way out, whose time is spent at Ascot and in the rest of the social round. So much of that is represented to people overseas by the photographs and news paragraphs in the newspapers. I want someone who can speak of those working in the mines of Derbyshire or of South Wales, people who can talk in the right terms about the work which is being done in our workshops and factories.
Those are the people we want represented to people abroad so that they will understand that we are not merely a top-hatted bunch lounging about at Ascot—because the pictures that go out are usually of that type of people. The story we want to get over is that of the common people, and in this struggle do not let us look round for a miserable £30,000 a year to save, for it is false economy. Let us see how we can spend money with greater advantage to countries overseas and here. Let us have a service which is expanding instead of contracting. It


is the right hon. and learned Gentleman's job to provide us with a service of an expanding and not a contracting nature.

4.55 p.m.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I welcome the more moderate and, at the same time, robust speech of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion). I agree that these labour attachés should concern themselves with what I might call social democratic developments at home—certain aspects of social engineering—and should impart that news to foreign countries, at the same time receiving the same sort of intelligence from foreign countries and advising their ambassadors accordingly, so that the Foreign Office are fully aware of kindred movements in countries overseas.
It is where the political and ideological aspect of this matter enters into the question that the danger occurs. I welcome this opportunity of saying that I thought the speeches of the right hon. Member of Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) and the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) were politically tendentious, reactionary and in danger of falling behind the level of world events. The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale did not stage a very large-scale attack upon my right hon. and learned Friend. He could not do so; the figures are not sufficiently with him. He gave them to us himself.
In 1947, after two years of Labour Administration, there were 19 of these labour attachés and there are now 17; a difference of two. One would have thought that after two years in office the Labour Government, if they had been so zealous about this matter, would have produced a situation where the greatest possible range of countries was covered by labour attachés. Then they might have had some real charge to make, that my right hon. and learned Friend, after 18 months of Conservative Government, had reduced the number to its present level of 17. The fall from 22 in 1950 to 17 in 1953—the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale did not say what the figures were in 1951 and 1952——

Mr. Bevan: I did mention them. I have not got the figures before me, but I can remember them. In 1952 there was a reduction, caused by the withdrawal or suspension of the labour attachés at Peking and in Peru.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The comparison between 1952 and 1953 is difficult to make, because specific figures were not given, but if there was a fall of five between 1950 and 1953, I do not regard that as being so very appalling, considering the economic crisis which this Government inherited from right hon. Members opposite and the large-scale reduction in costs which had to be made. Thirty thousand pounds is a significant sum in this particular field, but by no means too large. I do not see why labour attachés should be excluded from the general economies which the Government are making, to the great delight of hon. Members on this side of the Committee.
The right hon. Member went on to quote from certain documents, and told us what were the duties of these labour attachés. They had to inform the heads of their Missions of all important developments within their sphere of interest. What is their sphere of interest? That is what we have to turn our attention to this afternoon. If the sphere of interest is in the realm of the organisation of workers—to use a phrase which occurs in current Socialist legislation; in the Acts of nationalisation—that is to say the status and development of trade unions in a social democracy, to which the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East referred, there is no objection, but if the sphere of interest includes political and ideological fields, and the labour attaché is to interpret to the ambassador on the spot what is the next political development in the country concerned, there is some doubt about the matter.
I thought the British Foreign Office was sufficiently skilled, and that it had had sufficient experience over several hundred years, for an ambassador and his immediate staff to be able to interpret the political scene to the Government of the day, and that the trend in recent years had been to appoint labour attachés to study and report on trade union activities and the growth of labour institutions.
The right hon. Gentleman, of course, let the cat out of the bag when he spoke of the failure before the war to interpret at home what was happening in Italian and Spanish relations. Obviously, he had a case, to some extent, for we did experience a deficiency. He suggested that we should have had these labour


attachés, skilled in Left-Wing politics and the doctrine of collectivism, who ought to have talked to the ambassadors and warned them of the insipient Fascist dangers. That is the case the right hon. Gentleman made.

Mr. S. Silverman: They were not there.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: The right hon. Gentleman said they should have done so. That was the case he made. They were not there to do it, but they ought to have been there to do it he said, and his plea is that they should be there now doing the same sort of thing. This is where I think the right hon. Gentleman's speech is in danger of falling behind the level of events, because so far from political developments all over the world being towards collectivism and the organisation of Socialism, which it would have been the job to warn ambassadors about formerly, the situation is utterly different. We are now getting in countries in Western Europe, and beginning to get in countries behind the Iron Curtain, certain aspects of liberal developments and the release of those collectivist forces which have been operating there so long.
Therefore, it seems to me that those persons the right hon. Gentleman for political reasons now wants there are the very opposite of the class of persons who ought to be there. The ambassadors ought not to have labour attachés skilled in Left-Wing politics, skilled in interpreting these collectivist policies. They ought to have Right-Wing publicists, newspaper men, people of that kind. Of course they should, on the supposition only that the right hon. Gentleman himself makes, that these ideological and political activities are warranted and justifiable.
I make no such assumption myself. I do not claim that these labour attachés ought to operate in this field at all.

Mr. Edelman: Is the noble Lord aware that the end of his logic is that he who drives fat oxen must himself be fat?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: I have never known such complete logicians as there are on the other side of the Committee. We seek on this side of the Committee to be pragmatic, cautious; and we

endeavour never to exceed the limits of politics. That is why I maintain the view, as I am sure that my hon. and right hon. Friends on this side of the Committee do, that we must not enter into these wide realms of ideologies the right hon. Gentleman was so madly keen to see, hoping to score a party point in saying that the ambassadors were living in golden drawingrooms and needed these officials to keep them on the strait and narrow path of democratic, socialist activities.
I believe, as I am sure my hon. and right hon. Friends believe, that these labour attachés are a useful and essential part of the modern diplomatic mechanism, but do let us attempt to keep their activities within bounds, and not accede to these wild political suggestions that emanate from the other side of the Committee, because if we do, according to the general development of world events as I see them happening at the present time, they will produce exactly the wrong ideological answers for the time.
I have had a certain amount of experience of these labour attachés abroad. It has been my good fortune, when visiting embassies and legations, to meet them and discuss with them, and I have found from personal experience that ambassadors and ministers are glad to have them there; and they fulfil a useful purpose. One finds curious juxtapositions from time to time. In one embassy, which shall be nameless, for I do not want to identify the persons——

Dr. H. Morgan: Why not, if it is a good story?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: —I found the blackcoated gentlemen straight from, I suppose, violent ideological intercourse in cafes and factories and places, sitting in the most lavish 18th Century drawing-room, at their golden plated desks, and——

Dr. Morgan: Jealous?

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: —it was a little curious, for the ambassador had drawn them so closely to him that he could not have placed them other than in those very elaborate and very golden surroundings. To cap it all, one of them produced from his pocket, as if the old-style life had entered into his very soul,


the most beautiful golden cigarette case I have ever seen, with deeply engraved on it the words, Labor omnia vincit.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: The noble Lord the Member for Dorset, South (Viscount Hinchingbrooke) promised us more than he gave us. He said he was going to expose to the Committee, as the great authority he no doubt is, the reactionary nature of the speech that my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made. He has not done that. He has not even begun to do it. He did not even equip himself to do it, because he does not yet understand what a labour attaché is for, why we need labour attachés at all.
My right hon. Friend did not make a party point from the beginning to the end of his speech, unless one may say it is a party point to complain of unnecessary and unwise economies saving a paltry £30,000 a year in order to go back from the very narrow point of advance which we had reached. To complain of that may well be a party point, but my right hon. Friend was not making any party point about labour attachés as such.
The party aspect of the matter was most unwisely introduced by the hon. Gentleman the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather), and he said that criticism that the number was so few and that it was being reduced was a piece of self-criticism because the Labour Party did not do more, and had suspended one of the attachés, I think, before we left office. Is that mistaken?

Mr. Leather: With great respect to the hon. Gentleman, that is a complete distortion of what I said. The self-criticism to which I referred was that made by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Gentleman the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), when they used their hard adjectives to describe the position in the Middle East and South-East Asia, which has not been altered in any way.

Mr. Silverman: I am sure I am not mistaken in thinking, for we all heard him, that the hon. Gentleman said it was self-criticism when we complained that there were not any now. The hon. Gentleman does not agree? I think he ought to read his speech tomorrow morning, and then, perhaps, he will know exactly

what he was talking about, because it is quite clear he does not know now.
What I want to point out to the hon. Gentleman is that before 1942 there were no labour attachés at all. The hon. Gentleman, who agrees with me so enthusiastically about it, ought not to have made the point he made about self-criticism, because a little self-criticism would have been very much in order on his side of the Committee, as, perhaps, he will agree when he remembers that we had to come to 1942, three years after the outbreak of the last world war, before anybody in authority in this country cottoned, as it were, to the notion that there was a function to be performed in foreign embassies by labour attachés.
What we are complaining of today is that, having begun so late and having gone on so slowly, this is the wrong moment at which to go back. It is really nonsense for the noble Lord to say, "Ah, but we are not going back very much." It used to be 22 and we have succeeded in going back rather more than 20 per cent. in the last three years. If we go back at that rate, we shall soon be back where we started, and that is without any labour attachés at all.
What is the case for labour attachés? An embassy is a complex piece of machinery. It has many aspects, and it never was doubted in any quarter that it was useful to have a naval attaché at an embassy, or a military attaché at an embassy. We know all about that. (An HON. MEMBER: "Even with our allies.") Yes, in order to know all about the armed forces of our allies; to know what could be relied on and what progress was being made. It was so much an accepted part, and still is, of the diplomatic machine that all countries did it. Every country has naval attachés and military attachés.
Then there is the Press attaché. There have been for many years Press attachés for reasons quite obvious, and I do not need to expatiate upon them. What the noble Lord and his hon. Friends do not see is what a defect it was in our whole attitude to international relations not to see the importance of having the same kind of search for knowledge, the same kind of relationship, the same kind of study of what is, after all, the basis of all national life, as we had with its fripperies and extravagances.

Mr. Gower: Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the value of such a labour attaché would differ considerably according to the stage of development of the country to which he was accredited?

Mr. Silverman: I think we can all agree about that. It may very well be that the need is greater in one place than in another. It may very well be that the need is greater at one time than at another. The point that I am making is that we had to wait for a Labour Minister who was a member of the Labour Party before we ever saw the need to have a Labour attaché at all.

Mr. Osborne: A Conservative Prime Minister and a Conservative Foreign Secretary. The point which the hon. Gentleman is making is that we had to wait until we had a great Labour Minister before we saw the need to do that. That is perfectly true, but to put the matter in its proper setting I would point out that we also had at that time a Conservative Foreign Secretary and a Conservative Prime Minister.

Mr. Silverman: I wonder where the hon. Member got that idea. In 1942 we had the Prime Minister we have now, but he was not yet a member of the Conservative Party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] He was the right hon. Gentleman whom the Conservative Party had kept in the wilderness for 10 years because he would not back them up in these very things. If it had not been for the Labour Party in those days, the right hon. Gentleman would not have been Prime Minister at that time. The point that I am making is that if it is true—and it is true in a sense that there was a Conservative Prime Minister at the time—nevertheless, nobody denies that the initiative for all this came only when we had a Minister of Labour who understood the importance of the Labour movement in the countries with which we had relations, and the Conservative Prime Minister who took his advice, because there is no Labour Minister now, is cutting it down—and that is exactly what we are complaining about.
Concerning the other question of what is the job of labour attaché today, in the autumn of 1944 I went to the United States of America and remained there until February, 1945. I found that although then we were, happily, nearing

the end of the war in which we and America had been the closest allies for a number of years, the actual state of knowledge of the American people of the affairs in our country was lamentable. We had had for many years an organisation called British Information Services. I am sure that they did their best, but that is the most I can say for them. They had an office in New York. It was difficult to get into it, and, having got into it, one had to search for the man one wanted. One had to say exactly what one wanted to find out, and they found somebody to talk to one about it. There were a number of old newspapers and magazines lying about, and the job was done without imagination, without understanding and without sympathy.

Mr. Champion: I found, in 1949, that the conditions which my hon. Friend is talking about had altered considerably for the better.

Mr. Silverman: I am very glad to know that that is so. Of course, that was four years after the end of the war. I am sure that my hon. Friend is right, and it may be that my own criticism of what I found in 1944 is severer than it ought to be. It may be that there is an element of exaggeration in it. I am prepared to concede that. I do not say that there is, but I am prepared to concede that there may be.
But the over all effect was absolutely lamentable and one had the feeling that many Americans knew nothing about the service or that they could go there for knowledge or the means of realising the kind of thing that was going on in our own country. There was suspicion, ignorance, misunderstanding that did not accord well, at least so I thought, for the future. I went to Washington and met our first labour attaché. I do not think that there would be any harm in my mentioning his name and I do so with enthusiasm.
He was Mr. Archibald Gordon who, for many years, did the best type of mutual interpretation of our country and America that, I think, has ever been done in that Embassy. I might have been to America again quite recently but Senator McCarthy thought differently. He sees the information service from a different point of view. Mr. Gordon succeeded then so well, and I am glad


that he is succeeding now so well, because he understood so very well the British labour movement and because he maintained such close friendly contacts with the American labour movement, in both its divided forms.
It is a job which could not have been done by anyone else. It could not have been done by professional journalists; British Information Services could not have done it. The ordinary old-fashioned type of professional diplomat could not have done it because his contacts would have been different, his background would have been different and he would not have had the same capacity for interpreting the man in the street in one country to the man in the street in the other country. Only people charged with a job of that kind could have done the work. It is nonsense to say that this is something which we can perhaps tolerate but which we must not let go too far—that we must restrain its functions. Still more is it nonsense to say that it is not vastly important in the modern world to increase this kind of service and not to diminish it.
The noble Lord said that collectivist notions or theories or practices were on the way out. He said my right hon. Friend was reactionary in thinking that the volcano was still erupting in South-East Asia. I do not know. My view is that my right hon. Friend is quite right. But supposing the noble Lord were right. That is not a reason for not having labour attachés. It is all the more reason for having them there. Let us have somebody who can judge the situation and bring us back a fair report. He might delight the heart of the noble Lord with news of the successful advance backwards of reaction all over the world. On the other hand, it might turn out that it was not so at all.
I would rejoice to see a labour attaché appointed to the Embassy in Moscow. I think it would be an extremely useful addition to our diplomatic services there—and they need it.

Mr. Gower: He would not do much.

Mr. Silverman: The hon. Member may be right, but he may be wrong. If the hon. Member means that he deduces that the attaché would not do much because others who have been there so long have been doing very little for all that

time, I do not know. He could say, with some justification, that restrictions on his liberty would prevent him from doing it. If that is his argument, then he should argue that we should close the Embassy and bring them all home, but he would not be in favour of that.

Mr. Bevan: He has all the other attachés there.

Mr. Silverman: I cannot imagine what the military attaché does, nor can I imagine that the naval attaché will find his time over-occupied in Moscow, and what the Press attaché finds to do in a country where newspapers are limited in number and circumscribed in scope, I do not know; but nobody thinks they ought to be brought home. I should have thought that a labour attaché in Moscow could give us a great deal of information about conditions of life, about the organisation of trade unions, about the relations of trade unions with the Government and the relation of the workers with their trade union officials—just the very kind of thing about which we are woefully ignorant and the very kind of thing about which information would be extremely useful.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said we could disregard the fact that we had not reappointed a labour attaché in China, and I have some sympathy with him in that connection because there are no formal or complete diplomatic exchanges between this country and the Chinese. They have no ambassador here, and we have no full Minister or ambassador there, and I can see some difficulty about having an attaché when we have nothing to which to attach him, or not enough to which he can be attached. But assuming there were established full diplomatic relations between this country and China—as one hopes there may be—I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman would insist with the Foreign Secretary that among the first of the diplomats we sent out to Peking would be a labour attaché.
It is most important, and from this point of view it does not matter what view we take about the value or the merit of what has been going on in China for three years, because whether it is good, bad or indifferent, whether it is something to be aided or to be stopped, it is certainly something to be studied, for they are doing enormous things. We might


want to know how they are doing and by what methods, and we might want to know whether there is anything we could do to assist and whether it would be of any advantage to us if there were any way in which we could assist.
I should have thought it was in the highest degree wrong to say that these countries where the social ferment is most active are the countries where we must not send our labour attachés. These are the very countries where the movements of the human mind are going quickest and deepest. I say nothing about in what direction. These are the places where changes in the structure of human society are taking place most deeply and most rapidly, and it is vital to us, if we want to take an active and leading part in the affairs of the world, that we should equip ourselves to know what they are; and I should have thought it was lamentable to save a paltry £30,000 by moving backwards from a line along which we have never gone far enough.
I remember many years ago hearing Mr. Gustav Holst lecture about music. In the course of it he described what he considered to be the leading characteristic of the British character. He thought it was that the British character was most restless and uneasy unless it could be satisfied that it was moving only one step at a time. So keen were the British, in his opinion, to be satisfied that they were moving only one step at a time that, so long as they could be satisfied that they were moving no more than one step, they ceased to care whether it was backwards or forwards—and that was the noble Lord's speech.

5.29 p.m.

Mr. Cyril Osborne: If the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) will allow me to say so, having suffered him for 24 minutes I can say that he is a very poor exponent of his party's policy of fair shares. There are many hon. Members both on this side of the House and behind him who have been waiting for a long time to speak, and he has taken nearly as much time as the three previous speakers. I consider that he was very unfair to his hon. Friends.
The hon. Member referred to his visit to the United States in 1944 and 1945 and said that knowledge there of the

United Kingdom by people of the United States was very small. He said there was great suspicion, ignorance and enmity. We have exactly the same thing in this country of the American position today. Despite the magnificent work he has done in Washington with his half-dozen assistants, one labour attaché could not have dispelled that ignorance in a country which covers 3,000 one way and 2,500 miles the other way, for we in this country have not been able to dispel the ignorance here of the position in the United States.
I agreed with the hon. Member—it is not often that I do—when he paid tribute to Sir Archie Gordon. Since the war I have been to Washington three times—each time I have spent a considerable time with Sir Archie Gordon—and I hope to go there again in September. It is extraordinary how he can take one into the trade union offices there and how the doors of those in the highest executive positions in the United States are open to him. We can only deal with these matters on the basis of what we ourselves have seen.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan), who has now gone out—he has run away——

Dr. Morgan: Run away from the hon. Member?

Mr. Osborne: —spoilt an excellent case by bringing in party politics. We all agree that labour attachés are important and necessary. The right hon. Gentleman said that the pukka Foreign Office recruits undermined the position of labour attachés. My experience is that that is not true. I saw Mr. Braine in Rome in 1946 when there were great industrial troubles in Italy, and yet he was doing a first-class job there. I spent many days with him seeing industrialists and trade union leaders in Milan and Turin. There was not the slightest indication that as the right hon. Gentleman said, pukka Foreign Office officials were undermining his position. That was a complete lie. From my experience, that was a completely false statement.

Dr. Morgan: On a point of order, Mr. Hopkin Morris. Ought not the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the word "lie"?

The Deputy-Chairman: The word "lie" is not allowed.

Mr. Osborne: I withdraw the word, Mr. Hopkin Morris. I am sorry that I used it. What the right hon. Gentleman said was a complete mis-statement of fact according to my experience of the two best labour attachés that we have. I discussed the matter with them, and both said how well they had been received by the regular teams and how happily they had worked. The right hon. Gentleman did an ill-service to a fine part of our public service by bringing in the petty party spite which is typical of him. We all agree that this is an important Service, and the men in it are performing a fine service for our country and, incidentally, to the countries to which they are accredited.
We do not want the number reduced, but we have to face the fact that this is an economy. One hon. Member said that a saving of £30,000 was trifling, and in face of a Budget of £4,500 million, that seems to be a gross under-statement of fact; but any economy which is suggested by any Government will be bitterly attacked by the people having a special interest in the service concerned. If an economy comparable to this in, say, education were suggested, the school teaching profession would rise up in arms and create a row. If any economy were suggested in food or in any social service, there would be great protests.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite must face the fact that when they went out of power—I do not altogether blame them as a party for it—our country was living far beyond its means and we have now had to find methods by which to economise. Just before the General Election, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer said that there would have to be very serious and drastic economies in public expenditure. The leaders of hon. Gentlemen opposite agreed that some form of economy in public expenditure was necessary if inflation was not to run rampant.

Mr. Emrys Hughes: Is there not greater scope for economy in the case of the Secret Service, the expenditure upon which has risen from £3 million to £4 million, than in this paltry sum?

Mr. Osborne: I should not be in order if I discussed that matter. What we have to face is that this is an economy measure.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: I am sure the hon. Member will agree that, as long as we are, unhappily, involved in the cold war, which we all want to see ended, we have to provide the physical munitions to defend our country. As to the diplomatic side of it, if we are in an ideological war, might it not be even more important to be correctly informed about these matters and to have our relationships right than to have the physical munitions?

Mr. Osborne: Of course I agree, but what I am putting to hon. Members opposite is that they are objecting to an economy. While they were in power we were so over-spending our national income that many economies have had to be effected and this is one of them. [HON. MEMBERS: "That is election stuff."] It is not election stuff, but even if it is, it was very effective at Sunderland, and it would be equally effective next year. Hon. Members opposite must face that this is an economy. They do not like it, and I am not very fond of it either. I would have agreed with a certain amount of what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale said if he could only have kept his party spite out of it.
Will my hon. Friend assure me that if our financial position improves as a result of the Chancellor's budgetary policy there will be no further economies of this nature and that if there should be extra money to spend these services will then be restored? My hon. Friend was asked by an hon. Member opposite to give an undertaking that there would be no further cuts in the number of labour attachés, and I hope he will be able to give an affirmative answer. I hope he will also be able to say that when we can afford to spend more money as our position improves—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] It is no good hon. Members opposite saying that. We are still in a very tight economic position and before long our problem may be whether we can feed our people. Hon. Members opposite are living in a fools' paradise. I hope my hon. Friend will be able to tell us that, if our financial position improves, this particular economy will be brought to


an end so that the excellent work done by our labour attachés will not be impaired.

5.39 p.m.

Mr. Frank Tomney: The hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) has given us his usual theory on economies. He does not appear to have got his priorities into their correct perspective. In any country in the world, in the changing circumstances as we are now experiencing, the establishment of labour attachés is of first-class and foremost importance. What alarms me is that there are only 17 labour attachés to cater for 46 countries. I have no quarrel with those who wish to make economies at home and abroad, provided that they are based on priorities and a proper realisation of the issues involved.
Some 12 months ago Sir Ralph Glyn, who has now unfortunately left this House, presided over a Committee investigating certain aspects of the embassies in foreign countries. The results of that investigation were rather alarming. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) has advanced the opinion this afternoon that it is hard to determine where to place priorities in this situation, whether in the technical and industrial countries or whether in those countries where labour relations are just forming and where there is political awakening with prospects of development. It is a hard decision to take.
In all these things we have got to take a proper perspective. I am second to none in my admiration of the United States in certain aspects, and I agree we ought to have close associations politically, diplomatically, industrially, and so on. Let us have a look at what has happened in Embassy expenditure in the United States over a period of 10 years. I am glad that the Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is here be-because the figures I am going to quote may be a little on the low side and he can correct me. I have deliberately allowed for that. My figure will probably be £100,000 less than the actual figure. I should add that I have no actual knowledge of any economy effected since this Government took office.
The British Embassy in Washington pre-war had a staff of 23 and the total working expenses were £35,000 per annum. Today the ambassador's salary alone exceeds £4,500 and he has an allowance of some £31,000, the emoluments for this particular position being higher than in any other branch of the Civil Service. In addition to that he is provided with a residence out of public money. Before the war he had one counsellor; now he has five ministers. He has an adviser on German affairs with five counsellors. Pre-war he had one secretary; now he has 10. Other jobs have been increased correspondingly. We can see how the tremendous build-up has grown. Once a man gathers a staff round him and gets a salary, he tends to make himself more important by getting a larger staff. It happens in all our public services, including local government, it is a dangerous plan and something we should watch.
The local employees in the United States Embassy number 200, while there are 87 home-based staff. All these people like to ride in first-class cars. There are 27 cars at the Embassy all big powerful American vehicles, and there are chauffeurs to maintain them all. All these are run at heavy expense. Whether this is happening in all other countries in which we have representatives I do not know, but when we talk about reducing costs let us consider the thing in its proper perspective, because labour attachés are becoming more and more important.
It has been said that labour attachés represent the ordinary man in the street here to the ordinary man in the street in foreign countries. That is true. It is through these attachés that the ordinary people get to know about the ordinary people elsewhere in the world. The people in Asia and Africa, in Mexico, in Venezuela and in other parts of the world are anxious to know about working-class conditions here. Our standards are something which they desire to emulate, and among some Governments they are a matter of jealousy. Look at Egypt, and all the troubles that have arisen there because of low standards of living. All the working people everywhere want the standards which we have attained to here in industry and commerce. It is the labour attachés who are the people who can represent our standards of living to the


people overseas and great good can come of such work. International feeling can be improved.
Let us go back to the United States for a moment. In the Embassy there other Ministries are well represented. Apart from the Service attachés there are 14 others, a labour attaché and two assistants, a petroleum attaché, a scientific attaché, a food attaché, an agricultural attaché, an air attaché, a civil attaché, a shipping attaché, and a colonial attaché. In some of these things we have commerce and trade well represented, but they cannot get conditions across to the ordinary people in the way that labour attachés with their trade union background can do by attending the conventions of ordinary people and so meeting those ordinary people.
The total sum spent on the Washington Embassy before the war was £35,000. I believe that the total sum today on the Foreign Office staff in U.S.A. is about £1,200,000. Of this £438,000 is diplomatic and £131,000 commercial. That is a mighty leap from £35,000, and we have also got to remember that all this money has to be paid in dollars. In view of the fact that the reduction in the number of labour attachés all over the world represents only some £35,000, a miserable sum, I think we should be prepared to look seriously at the whole question again.
In this short speech I want to appeal to the Government to take the example of the United States which is a vast country with a large number of Provinces. It is an example of the kind of thing that we have got to do. If we take that example we will see the necessity for strengthening our labour attachés in every country throughout the world, and if we made economies in other directions in other embassies we could get the thing on to a reasonable basis so that we would be well covered in all branches of commerce, finance, banking and trade unionism.

5.48 p.m.

Mr. Peter Smithers: I listened with interest to the speech of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney). He suggested that in the Washington Embassy we could make a substantial improvement in the service of labour attachés by cutting down other expenses there. No one would be more willing than I to reduce diplomatic expenditure if it were shown that it was wasteful, but I do not think it is.
We all admire the sincerity of the hon. Member and his knowledge of trade union matters, but it is rather unrealistic for him to make a comparison between pre-war and post-war expenditures in the United States. Anybody acquainted with the problem there would know that they have practically no bearing one on the other. Not only has the expense of running the Embassy increased out of all measure, but so also have our needs there.
If the hon. Member is suggesting that it would be a good idea to sacrifice our commercial representation in the form of commercial attachés, that is a dangerous suggestion, because these attachés are performing an invaluable service to our exports. Anybody who has had contact with their work will know how much help they can give the British exporter. I agree that if there is any waste there it ought to be cut out; but I believe that it has already been done in that Department.
I did not intend to speak in this debate, but I happened to be in the Chamber when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) began his speech, and as he went on I thought that I must make a few remarks. I endorse the phrase of my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister, who said that labour attachés cement friendship at a new level. That expresses precisely their function. I have dealt with numerous labour attachés and have always found them exceptionally well informed. Furthermore, I have always found them to be respected by their colleagues. Yet some of the things said by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale—I am sorry he is not in his place—led me to wonder whether he really understands the functions of labour attachés and whether, during his time at the Ministry of Labour, he was able to give the attention to their services which doubtless he would desire.
For example, he spoke of the impossibility of their covering large areas, such as groups of countries. The idea that a labour attaché is required for every State is illusory, and in many cases they would be unemployed or badly employed if so appointed. The utility of the labour attaché depends largely on the character of the labour with which he has to deal. If it is highly organised, there is much that he can do. If it is


largely a wage-earning proletariat in that country, there is much on which he can advise his Government. If, however, it is a country where the majority of the proletariat are not wage earners but peasant cultivators—and there are many such still in existence—it is idle to have a full-time labour attaché or anything like that. What is wanted is an agricultural attaché. So it is no good pointing to the Middle East and saying, "Look, there is only one labour attaché dealing with all this," and then supposing that one has scored a heavy criticism of policy, since all one is doing is revealing one's own lack of comprehension.
The right hon. Gentleman said that labour attachés were a useful means of sounding opinion. I have always found that where a labour attaché is able to maintain close contact with local trade union organisations, he is probably one of the best informed men in the embassy. That alone is ample justification of the policy of maintaining labour attachés in appropriate places. But again, if there are no means through which he can maintain those contacts, as in backward countries, there is no means by which he can be any better informed than any other member of the embassy staff, because one man cannot, by his own researches and contacts, maintain touch with vast bodies of people.
In introducing this debate the right hon. Gentleman contrasted the position of the labour attachés with what he envisaged as the old diplomatic service. I do not believe that his speech did any good either to the cause he has at heart or to our diplomatic service by making those contrasts. The functions of a labour attaché, like those of any other diplomat, are precise and clear and everybody knows what they are. Our anxiety is that they should be in the right places and should perform their functions well. On that I think all of us who think about this problem could be agreed. In drawing the contrast which the right hon. Gentleman did, he gave a quotation which referred to the regular diplomatic service in time gone by as being "scholarly gentlemen isolated in several languages." I am sure there is no foundation for that either today or in any reasonably recent past.
It is often the case that a casual visitor to some foreign country who is not immediately invited to dinner, comes back with the story that diplomats move in small circles, because he has not himself had the privilege of moving in them. Yet if one takes the opinion of other diplomats, who are the best judges of diplomacy, I have always found that our own diplomatic service occupies a uniquely high place in their estimation. The right hon. Gentleman criticised the service because, he said, they were ill-informed about, for instance, the Italian intervention in Spain. I would remind the right hon. Gentleman that it is no part of the job of a diplomatic servant to make secret investigations or to carry on espionage work. It is not his business to be informed of what is going on in secret, but of the policies and actions of the Government. There are quite other organisations for dealing with secret matters.
Then the right hon. Gentleman went on to draw the distinction between labour attachés and regular diplomats who, he said, "moved in social circles at the top." "Social" circles at the top are not what diplomats ought to move in, but circles at the top are just where diplomats do have to move. The important thing is that our diplomats should be acceptable in circles at the top, whether it be top Government circles or top trade union circles. Therefore, I do not think that this criticism has any validity.
The right hon. Gentleman made three other allegations of which I want to remind the House. One was that the service was sensitive only to "dying events." Another was that it had betrayed ignorance of mundane matters, and the third was that it contained "useless ornaments," easily identified, who could be replaced by labour attachés. I am sure that if there are any unnecessary ornaments in the diplomatic service my hon. and right hon. Friends at the Foreign Office would like to know of them immediately. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will communicate with the Foreign Office about that matter, because they have been busily engaged in effecting most painful economies in reducing diplomatic staffs and in cutting down expenses everywhere. I can think of a number of cases where such reductions have been made. But for the right hon. Gentleman to get up in this House and talk about


useless ornaments in the diplomatic service, and then not to give any particulars to justify the allegation, is doing nothing to enhance the prestige of the service abroad or to help the interests of his country.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that the labour attachés are never popular with diplomatic staffs. Again in my experience that is not true. Some of the labour attachés I know are the most esteemed and personally liked and socially acceptable members of their diplomatic staffs. It is quite untrue to say these things. The right hon. Gentleman went on to say that they were not regarded as normal diplomats; but those who know their work and their capacities regard them as exceptionally good diplomats. To suppose that dealing with trade unionists is not a high form of diplomacy is quite erroneous. It requires gifts of the highest order.

Mr. I. O. Thomas: Why cut them down?

Mr. Smithers: I am coming on to that question in a moment. Finally the right hon. Gentleman said that he thought the wives of members of the regular diplomatic staffs were engaged in undermining the social position of the labour attachés. The ludicrousness of that statement will be obvious to anyone who knows the facts about our embassies abroad. Our diplomatic staffs abroad have a hard job. Let not Members think it is an easy job. It is very hard work, it is often very boring work, they often do it on inadequate pay, and it is particularly hard on the women. Therefore, for the right hon. Gentleman from the Opposition Front Bench to proclaim that kind of thing is injurious to patriotic people who cannot here answer for themselves.
Now I come to the question of a reduction. The fact is that the number of these attachés was nine at the date quoted by the right hon. Gentleman at the end of the war, it rose to 22, and is now 17. An hon. Member opposite asked why there should be a reduction. I regret the reduction. Nevertheless, what we have to do is to plan the diplomatic service in order to get the greatest efficiency within a particular budget. It is quite valueless to point to the reduction in the number of labour attachés without also taking

that reduction against the background of the general reduction in expenditure on other diplomatic services. I hope that if my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary intervenes in the debate, he will be able to put the thing in perspective and show that hard and painful economies have been made all through the administration.
I myself, as a representative to the Council of Europe at Strasbourg, have had to go without my taxi from the station to the embassy, for example, which used to be provided. I am glad that it is so, because I think it was a waste. I believe that innumberable great economies have been made, although I am aware that this is only one very small one.
It seems to me that the job of this part of the service is to advise and to represent. To represent one's country, one does not have necessarily to come from any one class or occupation. The purpose of an embassy staff is to represent their country as a whole. To introduce those social considerations into a debate upon the utility of the labour attachés is to muddy and confuse the issue. In fact, under modern conditions the members of the Foreign Service are chosen from a fairly wide basis and have wide qualifications. I believe that an able ambassador in his own person, if he knows his job, can represent the whole community in an admirable manner.
Therefore, while any reduction in the strength of the labour attachés is regrettable, I do not believe that real damage will be done by these reductions, nor do I think they are unreasonable when we bear in mind the sacrifices which have to be made in other parts of the Foreign Service. I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend on his resolve to persevere with this portion of the service and to see that it is efficiently conducted.

6.2 p.m.

Mr. Frederick Lee: I am distressed to know that our delegates at Strasbourg now have to walk between their hotel and the place of meeting.

Mr. Smithers: A jolly good thing.

Mr. Lee: It was not so in my day. We could fight for the worst type of car on the road, and we probably got one. I hardly think, however, that that


would be advanced as anything comparable to certain labour attachés in important parts of the world.
The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) seemed to have difficulty in finding what reason there could possibly be for having a labour attaché in a purely agricultural community. I understand the hon. Member's meaning; there is not the same type of organisation, nor are there the same opportunities to get down to things. I remind the hon. Member, however, that in many parts of the world countries which a few years ago were purely agricultural are now semi-manufacturing countries. The tendencies are all in the direction of producing more and more manufactured goods. The former peasant who is now being brought into industry is a far more difficult proposition than the person with an industrial background and the "know-how" from within. I should have thought that in that kind of country, in which there is this marked change-over from agriculture to a manufacturing economy, the labour attaché could do a tremendous job of work, especially in the early phases of that change-over.
It has been questioned whether the Foreign Office disagree with the Ministry of Labour on this issue. For my part, I have differed from the Chancellor of the Exchequer on many aspects of the economic policy which he has outlined in the past two years. I believe that he or the Treasury are entirely responsible for this tragic economy. A figure of £30,000 has been mentioned. I should have thought that at a time such as this it was a quite false economy to withdraw labour attachés or to refuse to appoint more in certain parts of the world. Let me give one or two reasons.
Stress has been laid on what we as a country derive from having labour attachés in certain parts of the world. It is quite right and proper that we shoud do that. Indeed, I have had the privilege of seeing very many of the reports that these gentlemen send from most parts of the world, and I pay my tribute to those documents as being the most realistic type of reports on the real things that matter inside a country. From reading the reports sent in by our labour attchés, one can almost visualise the changing conditions in many parts of the world.

Indeed, on occasions when I was a little hazy as to what was happening in one country or another, I would ask whether we could get a special report on a specific issue, and the reports that we obtained were most enlightening. They illustrated the type of mind which was in contact, not only with workmen as such, but with the conditions governing industry throughout the country in question.
For my part, however, I do not believe that it is merely for what we can get out of it that we should retain and expand our service of labour attachés. At least as important, I should have thought, is to consider the effect on some of the countries to which they have been assigned. In 1946 I happened to be sent by the late Ernest Bevin with two colleagues from the House to Persia. At that time the difficulties in the oil industry were beginning to show themselves. One was under no illusions as to the breeze from the North, which perhaps fanned things up a bit. On the other hand, I am utterly convinced that had there then been a really advanced system of industrial relationships, had we been able to have somebody there, not merely at that point but for a number of years beforehand, who could have advised the management of the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company on the methods of dealing with labour, the events which have since taken place in Persia would never have happened.
The hon. Member for Winchester reminded me of that when he spoke of the agricultural community. In Persia we already had the background. We had to enlarge the refinery at Abadan. Thousands of people were flocking in at the very moment when Anglo-Iranian could not build any more houses because the raw materials had to be used for enlarging the refinery. Resentment came to the top, and the flame was easily fanned. If at that time there had been somebody with the "know-how" as regards negotiating with their employees, I am certain that the history in that part of the world would have been very different.
It is more in that context that one feels that it is a very great tragedy indeed that we should be reducing the number of our labour attachés. Typical of the type of man who does this job was one I met in Persia. Before I entered the House of


Commons, I looked after the labour side of things in one of the biggest factories in Britain. Among other things, I used to argue with the Ministry of Labour man who would come in during the war to ask whether we could spare, for instance, a dozen fitters. The next time that I saw that man—Mr. Audesley—was in Persia, and I felt that the same mentality and knowledge as he had shown in Manchester in the grim days of the war, in getting the best out of the distribution of our labour force, were being exercised in the Middle East. It is true that that man had a huge area to cover. He came up from Egypt to see our delegation in Persia.
It was, I know, our intention vastly to expand the service which was being given. Therefore to quote the figure of 22 attachés as the maximum, which was attained in 1951, is by no means the whole of the story. We cannot simply allocate these people or decide that we are to have another four or five labour attachés without making certain that we have the best men for the job and that the conditions are proper for them to operate. It is not just a matter of churning them out. One has to be careful to get the right man and the right background before a service of this kind can be got going.
It is against that background of a constantly expanding service that we now see this miserable business of reduction to 17. We are living in a most critical phase of world history. We are seeing very many so-called backward countries deciding that the time has arrived when they can expand and be masters of their own affairs. In this new period they cannot merely make a political decision as to how they are to expound and what type of democracy or what type of Government they are to have. In a very great degree the industrial capacity of the country—the knowledge of how to meet the economic problems of a new, rising industrial economy—will predetermine the type of political set-up they ultimately get.
Against that background this decision is indeed tragic just when we are trying—humbly, I hope, and without aggrandisement—to show what we have learned over more than 100 years of industrial relationships and when we have something

to offer and when the world is changing and in flux in these things. Revolutions are taking place in these areas every day. Yet it is at that precise moment that the Chancellor decides that this service cannot be continued, or expanded, but must be reduced. One cannot argue that a certain percentage of damage will be done by the withdrawal of two or three of these men. I can only say, having had the experience of seeing them at work in most difficult conditions, that I believe they have done and can continue to do a job which no other type of ambassador can possibly do.
When the Government felt it necessary to withdraw labour attachés from China and Poland, do not think the Committee would be right to accept that that meant a diminution from 19 to 17. I know both men, especially Mr. Kirby, who was in Warsaw; I met him in Warsaw and admired the work he was doing. I believe they should be allocated to other areas. I do not think it was right to reduce the number, but that rather they should be sent to other parts of the world where they could do equally good work. I am a little dubious about the enthusiasm of certain hon. Members opposite about the retention of 17——

Mr. Osborne: Oh.

Mr. Lee: The hon. Member may say, "Oh." I hope he is right and that I am wrong. If on any ground whatever it is considered necessary to withdraw any more labour attachés, I hope the Minister will demand that, instead of the service being reduced, they shall be allocated to other countries which badly need them.
Two or three years ago we had an attaché in Greece. That man did an enormous amount of work in keeping us informed in a most difficult situation. I do not need to recall the difficulties in Greece at that time. That man's work was of inestimable value. At that time there was estrangement between Greece and Yugoslavia. Happily, the position does not so exist today. May I ask whoever is to reply to the debate whether we are now considering enlarging the scope of the labour attaché in Athens in order at least to cover Yugoslavia? On the political side it may well be that he could do a first-class job, although it may be outside the usual bounds of a labour


attaché's position. I believe it is necessary for us to continue that line of thought. Maybe Turkey could be brought in under the same attaché, but at least they should be covered in this way.
I hope the Minister will feel that this service is something almost unique. I do not want to say anything to upset people in other countries, but I am a little alarmed when I see the expansion of this type of work by certain countries whose mastery of diplomacy is perhaps not complete. I think that in some parts of the world positive harm is done by sending out inexperienced men to certain countries. I shall not pursue that matter further, except to say that against that background it is utterly vital that we should not only maintain what we have, but strive to find more of these first-class people and send them out. We appreciate their reports and benefit from them, but I believe that in the main the work they can do at a time when so much of the world is in flux—when the right word, the "know-how" and a little advice to show a young struggling Government how to consolidate its economic position—is something for which, in the fullness of time, this country will receive plaudits and gratitude.
I know that from a personal point of view the Minister admires the service. I hope that the Committee as a whole will not permit any silly, pettyfogging, restrictionist policy of the type we are discussing, but will insist that, if economies have to be made they will be balanced in a proper way. I hope that when we see a false economy of this kind taking place, both parties in this Committee will come down heavily on this the Chancellor, or any other Chancellor, and ensure that the policy of labour attachés shall be allowed to expand.

6.18 p.m.

Sir William Darling: That this is a most agreeable subject for the Opposition to have chosen for discussion this afternoon is doubtless understood, but it was not understood by me when first the debate began.
I have met two labour attachés, one in Holland and one in France, and I found they were useful, well-established members of the diplomatic body; but when I hear the presentation of their duties as outlined by the hon. Member

for Newton (Mr. Lee) I am slightly shocked and alarmed. We have been informed that it is part of their duty to guide a young Government in the right way it is to go and that it is their duty, in the hon. Gentleman's opinion, in Persia to suggest certain kinds of organisation of labour in a sovereign country which is not our own. If the hon. Gentleman suggests that the things which have happened in Persia are the consequence of this, I am compelled to change my opinion of these gentlemen. I hope that what has been said is not true but is entirely inaccurate. Nothing could be more mischievous and foreign to the wishes of this country than that we should send people to tell other countries how they should conduct their affairs, and whether to promote a trade union movement or not.

Mr. Lee: Is not the hon. Member aware that many of the Governments concerned go well out of their way to ask the advice of people such as I have mentioned? In regard to Persia, I did not say there was a labour attaché there whose advice was disregarded; I said that if there had been a member of the service and an opportunity of taking the advice of an experienced person, such a thing would never have taken place.

Sir W. Darling: I am grateful for the assurance that labour attachés do not interfere and offer advice to young Governments. If the misapprehension existed at all, it was because the hon. Member said so. I was not aware of it, but he has reiterated that sometimes they proffer advice and sometimes it is sought from them.
I think there is a deep psychological background to this discussion. There is an endless confusion in the mind of the Opposition about the use of the word "labour." It cannot be applied to anything without being confused with the Labour Party. The labour attaché has nothing to do with the Labour Party. He may have been a member of the Labour Party and share the views of those who so describe themselves, but because the word "labour" is used it causes a great upsurge of protestation which is apparent to the Committee. That is the reason they are psychologically tender on this particular subject.

Mr. Bevan: The hon. Gentleman ought not, even inadvertently, to give a false


impression. Labour attachés are almost invariably recruited from the permanent staff of the Ministry of Labour and are, therefore, not supposed to have, and do not express, any political opinions or affiliations whatever.

Sir W. Darling: I was well aware of that. The right hon. Gentleman is making my case for me. I was referring to the extreme sensitiveness of the friends of the right hon. Gentleman when they use the word "labour" at all. It is almost a sanctified word. It is somehow different from educational attachés or other attachés; it is somehow sacred.
Perhaps I may refer the right hon. Gentleman to his own words, delivered in his inimitable manner. Putting both elbows on the Box, and putting his spectacles in his pocket, he said, "This great service was set up"—I cannot provide the intonation of the right hon. Gentleman's attractive and winning voice—" by my right hon. Friend during the Coalition. He, with his Labour friends, was responsible. They gave a much-needed prodding to the Government of the day." So if these are not his children, if I am not right in saying that labour attachés have these peculiar qualities, it is because I have been misinformed by the right hon. Gentleman.
Do not let us be too tender about this matter. This is not a class matter; these are 17 important public officials who are the subject of debate. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne), who is never afraid to say unpopular things, has truthfully said, this country cannot afford large numbers of officials, and economies have been made in this Department, as in any other. They should be made more extensively. From what I have heard of labour attachés this afternoon, I am not inclined to believe that an extension of this system, as desired by various hon. Members opposite, is desirable.
Let us be careful that these members of the staff of the Ministry of Labour, whatever their earlier background—they did not begin in the Ministry of Labour; I know where they came from, I know their earlier origins—whom we send out to Persia and elsewhere do not foment difficulties and fail to further the best interests of this country. I am gravely suspicious, whatever their intentions,

however good those intentions are—no doubt the Minister will see that their intentions are better than they were—I am a little afraid that in this difficult and dangerous world these interfering gentlemen, as they have been described, ought to be advised to mind their own business and, like Agag, tread delicately.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. James Hudson: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) has made clear that he has gathered very little from this debate except that labour attachés are something on which we can afford to make economies. In that he finds himself well led by the hon. Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne). In fact, wherever there is a question of economy hon. Members opposite generally are in full cry after it, irrespective of the claims for good work to be done and which ought to be done rather than that the economy proposed should be made.
I have gathered from this debate that there is a general suspicion on the other side of the Committee that economies have been made in other parts of the diplomatic service as well. I had hoped that some of them would detail the economies on a large scale which would enable us to encourage ourselves in the situation that now faces us about these labour attachés. The only economy mentioned has been that referred to by an hon. Member who, when he goes to Strasbourg, has to walk instead of getting into a cab.

Mr. Smithers: I was trying to point out that these economies have gone down even to the tiniest details. Very large economies have been made, I believe. I am looking forward to hearing of them from the Government Front Bench.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member gave only the tiniest detail he could think of tonight. I am saying that if there were some important matters about which we could be told, hon. Members opposite would have a better case.

Mr. Smithers: I am sure that the hon. Member would not wish to misrepresent me. It was not the only economy I could think of. I believe the post of financial adviser in Paris has been suppressed, and so on. I was quoting a small detail to


show how thorough the economies have been. I could think of many other economies.

Mr. Hudson: The hon. Member makes the case over again but he could only think of a small detail, and I was not impressed by it.
I am impressed by the case which my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) made. Most hon. Members who have spoken have referred to the fact that this proposal to have labour attachés came forward during the period of office of Mr. Ernest Bevin. Actually it grew out of much earlier discussions in the House, which again, if I am to be accused of being party political in my approach to the problem, I say were very largely the result of agitation on this side of the House.
I remember Mr. E. D. Morel and his protests about the personnel in the Foreign Office and their inability to face the problems that were arising in the modern Europe before and immediately after the First World War. Very largely as a result of that sort of criticism, which he carried on both in the House and previously in the country, there was a feeling, certainly in Parliament, that men ought to be appointed to the Foreign Office who knew a great deal more about the social movements of this country and the social movements of the world in order that, through their knowledge of these matters, they might have a better chance of providing an increasing check against developments towards war.
It was because of that point of view that in 1925, just after the first Labour Government, when E. D. Morel used to talk about these things in the House, there was a proposal made that a new type of committee should be set up to examine the credentials of young men making application for service as diplomats in the Foreign Office. I had the good fortune as far back as that date—1925—to be selected, with Ronald McNeill, as he then was—Lord Cushenden, as he was afterwards—and a leading member of the Civil Service, to examine the claims of the young men who were applying for the higher positions in the Foreign Office.
I remember that I got the opportunity to ask my own questions of these young men who came forward. They were from the universities; they knew all about the

classics, some were great mathematicians, many had read history. But when it came to the question of what they had read in economics, particularly that sort of economics that would give them a contact with the people whom they would meet in Europe, the great minds of Europe that had been trained not merely in what we in this country call capitalistic economics, but also Marxist economics, none of them had any acquaintance with it. I was looked upon as something of a crank at that time for asking such questions. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman who then represented the Tory Party, Ronald McNeill, thought that these questions were quite irrelevant, that these applicants did not need to know anything about the mentality of the people whom they would meet on the Continent in regard to the serious issues that arose.
It is from that kind of protest which was made about the ineffectiveness of many of the people in the diplomatic service to meet the new impulses in the world that Ernest Bevin very rightly made this proposal for the selection of the direct labour attaché.
I have one other word of criticism to offer about the discussion as it has run its course. Nearly everyone has talked about the labour attaché having a capacity to approach trade union problems abroad. If he is an effective labour attaché it should be not merely trade union problems, but the whole of the problems of humanity both as producers in the workshops and as consumers. The labour attaché who is well up to his job—and I believe that many who have been appointed are so—will know something of the Co-operative movement as well as the trade union movement.
Hon. Gentlemen begin to look down their noses when I mention the Cooperative movement; but here is a great movement with 11 million people in this country making tremendous efforts to solve economic problems, and to persuade people abroad to make similar efforts. The capacity to examine what co-operative efforts are taking place abroad, to talk to co-operators abroad and bring information to the attention of the Foreign Office and in Parliament, is an important part of the work of a labour attaché.
When I look at the proposals offered us, I deplore that not only Sweden and Denmark, for example, where both trade


unionism and the co-operative movement are very strong, but Venezuela have been selected as places where we can afford to make economies. There, at the present moment, enormous American capitalist feelers are being put out. There are great developments in a new industry. I noticed the other day that one of those American newspapers which provide us with cheap reading each morning by sending us free copies of their publications had a special supplement on Venezuela. I read it with the greatest interest. I was amazed, although I had read something about Venezuela, at the enormous advance made in a new capitalist direction in the last few years. I should say that Venezuela cannot be run from Mexico. We shall know very little about Venezuela if that is the best the Government can think of. In that country there should be a special representative who will face the sort of problems of which I am speaking.
These proposals of my right hon. Friend are good and the Government should pay heed to them. I am willing to admit that the right hon. and learned Gentleman opposite dealt with the matter in a reasonable way—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear"]—yes, but I wish that he had set an example to his followers. The statements we have heard from the benches opposite reveal the depth of ignorance of the Tory mind. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was feeling his way to something better, against a Chancellor who has imposed on him, as on other Ministers, the sort of unjustifiable economy which constantly faces us today. I am glad this debate has taken place, and I say we should return to the appointment of new and more labour attachés.

6.34 p.m.

Mr. Raymond Gower: I wish I could always feel, as surely does the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. J. Hudson), that my side are always right and my opponents always wrong. I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) in his summing-up of the speech of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan). I thought the right hon. Gentleman introduced this subject in a reasonably quiet way and was not unduly provocative. He slipped in one or two

party points, but that was quite natural and to be anticipated.
I do not think this has been shown to be a political issue. As the Minister has said, all we have had is evidence of some slight reduction in the numbers of one kind of official in our diplomatic service. We have not had the advantage of a full survey of what has been done in every branch of the service or indeed in the Foreign Office as a whole.
The right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale expressed the Labour view that none of the attachés should have been removed, but rather that the numbers should have been increased. He went on to say that it was better to sacrifice other members of the embassy staff, and I could have wished he had made some concrete suggestions about what other members might have been sacrificed. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour will tell us what other economies have been made. My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers) gave us a few examples.
It is obvious that the main issue between hon. Members on each side of the Committee is that, rightly or wrongly, Ministers on this side of the Committee felt that the national economy demanded certain economies. That is possibly something about which hon. Members opposite may properly disagree. But the Government must carry out the overall policy which arises from their assessment of the national financial position, and this is one of the results of that general policy.
The most remarkable suggestions were made by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman). Apart from being a mere representative of his Government, the labour attaché, said the hon. Member for Coventry, North, was also a sort of person who might advise and encourage the nationals of the country to which he is accredited in the development of their trade unions and possibly in their political institutions. I should have thought that was a very dangerous case to make.
Labour attachés or any other diplomats who indulge in those practices on a very wide scale would deserve the strong criticism from the House. As my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester pointed out, those are not the duties of diplomatic representatives. I should imagine their


duties include keeping out of the affairs and the life of the country to which they are accredited as much as possible. They might mix privately with the people and make contacts in commercial life, but surely they should not instruct in the development of either political or industrial institutions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling) probably put his finger on the real reason for the impassioned criticism of hon. Members opposite when he said that this is one of the things they regard as their own offspring. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister of Labour said that these labour attachés are designed to cement friendships on a new level. I think that is what the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale had in mind when he introduced this debate. They should not be regarded as of superior genius. They are human beings, like other members of the diplomatic service. They cannot accomplish miracles and if one of them is removed from any part of the world that is not a fatal blow to our diplomacy.
I suggest that a labour attaché must be most valuable in a country where industrial development is most advanced. I doubt if a labour attaché would have been of any value at the Court of Genghis Khan, for example, unless we take the view that a labour attaché is a man who is interested in other spheres of life beside his proper sphere of diplomatic representation. Some speakers have suggested that a labour attaché is a sort of additional member of the British espionage in other countries. That explains why there has been this divergence of view.
In short, the position is that in 1945 there were only nine attachés. In 1949 the number had increased to 21, and in 1950 it was 22. Of the five who have now disappeared, I think that my right hon. and learned Friend mentioned that one was in China and another in Poland. It is true that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) suggested that a labour attaché might be of great value in China and in Poland. I am prepared to subscribe to the view that a labour attaché would have some value in any country. What the Minister had to decide was whether that value was commensurate with the expenditure in each country. There is a case for the

Minister to say that in the conditions which prevailed in China and Poland when those officials were removed he properly adjudged that to put other labour attachés there then was not merited.

Mr. Bevan: Would the hon. Gentleman address himself to the point that perhaps the least effective of all attachés in these circumstances would be the military and naval attachés?

Mr. Gower: That point was also made by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne. It is one which the Minister might well consider. The Minister might consider whether the attaché in Mexico can effectively deal with so many Central American countries. At present he has to look over most of Central America and parts of South America and there might be a case for examining that position. It has been said that the economy is in the wrong places. I think that those very words were used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale. Economy is always in the wrong places. It is extremely difficult for a Government to introduce economies anywhere.
There are one or two aspects of this problem which have more than merited this debate. I hope that the Opposition have been comforted and encouraged by what the Minister said. He made it clear that it is as much his desire as it is theirs to maintain an efficient system of labour attachés wherever essential. That should go a long way to encourage them and meet their fears.

6.43 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Harold Watkinson): The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said that he hoped to have a further Government statement before the end of the debate. I am happy to oblige him. It gives me an opportunity to say a few words of genuine and sincere tribute to a very great service and a very great part of the Ministry of Labour.
I cannot understand the attitude of the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) who seems to think that our ambassadorial service and our embassies abroad are hotbeds of jealousy and envy. That has never been my experience, as a businessman who, when travelling abroad since the war, has always had the


utmost co-operation from any member of the embassy staff; and it was always the member of the staff I wanted.

Mr. Edelman: The hon. Gentleman is exaggerating. I said nothing to suggest that the embassies were hotbeds of jealousy and envy. I said specifically that there was resentment in certain embassies about certain labour attachés.

Mr. Watkinson: I will contradict that statement, too. That statement gives an equally false picture of the kind of teamwork that goes on in every embassy abroad, especially where a labour attaché is accredited. I am supported in that by the practical experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth (Mr. Osborne) in Italy with Mr. Braine, who has done most notable and valuable work; and also by the expert knowledge of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Smithers), who was an attaché during the war. He was entirely right in his view that the present relationship between labour attachés and the ambassadorial hierarchy is happy, satisfactory and efficient. I hope that these remarks have at least disposed of a slur on what is a very fine service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North (Mr. Leather) and also the hon. Gentleman the Member for Hammersmith, North (Mr. Tomney) asked questions about the position in the United States. I should say first that although we have made some major cuts in the general Foreign Service in the United States, we have made none in the labour attachés or in the assistant labour attachés. The position in the United States is preserved exactly as it was in the time of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale. That is right and proper.
In addition, my hon. Friend the Member for Somerset, North asked if we proposed to make any cuts in the staff there. We do not propose to alter the present situation, which is that we have a very efficient labour attaché, Sir Archibald Gordon—I associate myself and my right hon. and learned Friend with the tributes paid to him from both sides of the Committee—and three assistants in Washington, Chicago and San Francisco. That is fair and adequate coverage. That is how the position stands and I hope that that is how it will remain. I hope that I have

answered the problem of the hon. Member for Hammersmith, North in assuring him that there have been no cuts in the labour attaché service in the United States.
I prefer the approach of the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion), who I thought took a balanced view and paid a most generous tribute to the work of the service. The fact is that we must look at the matter from a general point of view. We cannot regard even a most valuable service such as this in isolation. It is fair in this context, as a great many hon. Members have dealt with the Foreign Service in general, to put things into proportion by giving two figures. The saving in the cuts in the labour attaché service amounted to £30,000; but the Foreign Service as a whole has had to take a reduction of 275 in personnel and nearly £500,000 in total cost.

Mr. Bevan: Have any other attachés suffered a reduction?

Mr. Watkinson: I am merely giving the global total. I would tell the right hon. Gentleman that it is a net total. This is the Foreign Service——

Mr. Bevan: I understand that. We are not comparing the reduction of £30,000 on labour attachés with the general reduction in Foreign Office expenditure but with the reduction in other attaché services. Has there been any reduction at all in other attachés?

Mr. Watkinson: That is quite another question.

Mr. Bevan: It is the question.

Mr. Watkinson: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will allow me to answer him. If we are to look at this problem at all we must look at it fairly in relation to the problem of the Foreign Service as a whole. It is most unfair to assume, as I think some hon. Gentlemen on both sides of the Committee assumed, that we have cut the labour attaché service in isolation. We have not. We have made reductions somewhat similar to those made in the Foreign Service as a whole. It is only fair to take account of that point of view.
Therefore, the first point to make plain in this short summing up is that the present Administration believe as sincerely


and strongly as they can in this most valuable and vital service provided by the labour attachés. There is no intention on our part to try to lower their status or to denigrate their service in any way. We fully associate ourselves with the many tributes paid to them from both sides of the Committee. That has been one of the pleasant features of the debate. It has not pursued a narrow party line but has examined factually a most important service.
My hon. Friend the Member for Winchester, who speaks with expert knowledge, was right when he said that we cannot examine the service as a whole but must take each country as a special case and examine it on its merits. What is right for one country is not necessarily appropriate for another. It is improper to assume, as has been assumed by many hon. Members, that an ambassador is, in some mysterious way, entirely precluded from having any contact with trade unions or employers in the country where he is situated. I think that is a most improper and quite impracticable conclusion, and it does not fit the facts. In some countries, where the population is largely peasant and not industrial, it may be that for the time being that kind of representation is best; then as industrialisation occurs that might be the time to consider the addition to the staff of a labour attaché.
I would mention again that, as my right hon. Friend said quite plainly, we have an open mind on this whole matter. We are not tied to any particular number of labour attachés; but we are tied to the necessity for running the service efficiently and putting the right men in the right jobs, as well as trying to see that this service also fits into the general pattern of reasonable Government economy, as every service of necessity must do in present conditions. That is what we are hoping to do.
It would be quite improper to assume that every embassy must as of right have a labour attaché attached to it. That is why, in our new grouping, we have tried to be sensible. For example, we have suspended the labour attaché in Denmark, but, as those of us who have business connections with Scandinavia know, Scandinavia is largely one economic unit;

and therefore our attaché in Stockholm is well placed to meet the needs of Scandinavia as a whole. In a country which has a separate problem, like Finland, we have a separate attaché. I do not think, therefore, that there is any great loss of efficiency in dropping our attaché in Denmark. We will see how the Scandinavian concept of running the service works out.
The same thing applies to the Low Countries, where we have now got one attaché centrally situated. He will serve the whole area. I agree that the problem of Venezuela is perhaps more difficult. It will be necessary for our representative in Mexico to handle the particular problems of that area. But I think we are right to try the experiment, and we must see how it works out.
There is one other point to which I must make reference. Perhaps I misunderstood my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Sir W. Darling), because I may not have been listening carefully to him. But if he meant to say that the members of our labour attaché staff, as individuals, were either politically biased or have departed from the traditional Civil Service attitude of no party politics, I must differ from him. I must tell him that it is incorrect, and that all our labour attachés comport themselves in the most correct manner.

Sir W. Darling: My hon. Friend may be relieved if I say that that is not what I said.

Mr. Watkinson: No doubt I misunderstood my hon. Friend.
Perhaps I should now try to be a little more constructive, and give a little more information to the Committee on what this great service is doing, because one or two hon. Members seem to have some doubts that our position is rather weak, for example, in South-East Asia. The Committee would like to know that Mr. Cowan, the Labour Adviser attached to the Commissioner-General for South-East Asia, recently had the interesting and somewhat onerous task of being consulted by the That Government regarding the whole of their labour legislation. He was able to make recommendations which I believe that Government found very helpful. I believe that his recommendations will actually be embodied in


the new code of labour regulations. That is the sort of job which our attachés do so well.
May I give another example? The Middle East has been suggested as another area where the labour attaché has perhaps a difficult job. I read through all the reports of the labour attachés, and very fascinating, informed and efficient reports they are. Our attaché covering the Middle East recently produced some reports on conditions in that area which I think were more factual and down to earth than anything sent to our Government and the Foreign Office from any other source.
Finally, as we are not discussing this question in a party political way—the right hon. Gentleman opposite gave us a good lead in that respect—I would not like it to go out from this Committee that these people, stationed all over the world and doing a very difficult job, are felt here to be wanting in their task or lacking in skill and application. I am sure that that is not the feeling of any hon. Member who has spoken. The question before us is whether we should have made these cuts. The first two cuts—China and Poland—were inevitable. It is no use spending money on labour attachés in countries where they cannot do useful work. I hope I have dealt with the last three cuts, with Scandinavia, with the reason of grouping the Low Countries, and with Venezuela.
I hope I have made it plain that we regard the whole of these services as one of the most important arms of the Minister of Labour, and we intend to keep an open mind on how they are run. We will always look at the position again. We will look at the various suggestions made during the debate,

although I cannot commit my right hon. and learned Friend to any decision one way or the other; but we will consider most carefully the suggestions made during the debate.

The last point I want to make concerns assistant labour attachés. Here we have not made any cuts at all, so that we still have 17 labour attachés and six assistant labour attachés, making a total staff of 23. I think that is one more than the highest figure ever reached by labour attachés alone. On the whole, we feel that this service has not been impaired or spoiled in any way by the action of the Government. We feel that its members are doing a most vital and useful task, and I hope the Committee will support and encourage them in the difficult job they have to do in difficult circumstances.

We will continue to keep a close eye on the service, and we will certainly watch most carefully to see that the important areas of the world are properly covered by labour attachés who can provide the kind of information which probably no other person could do. Therefore, from that point of view, the labour attachés are unique, and they must be preserved within the sensible framework of efficiency and economy. I therefore hope that the Committee will wish the service well, and will confirm the action of the Government.

Mr. Bevan: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply from the Government, I beg to move, "That a sum not exceeding £12,774,000, be granted for the said service."

Question put.

The Committee divided: Ayes, 167; Noes, 212.

Division No. 205.]
AYES
[7.1 p.m


Albu, A. H.
Bowles, F. G.
Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Edelman, M.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Brockway, A. F.
Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)


Awbery, S. S.
Champion, A. J.
Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)


Bacon, Miss Alice
Chetwynd, G. R
Fernyhough, E.


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J
Clunie, J.
Finch, H. J


Bence, C. R.
Collick, P. H.
Fletcher, Eric (Islington, E)


Benn, Hon. Wedgwood
Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Gibson, C. W.


Beswick, F.
Cove, W. G.
Gooch, E. G.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Craddock, George (Bradford, S)
Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)


Bing, G. H. C.
Crosland, C. A. R.
Grenfell, Rt. Hon D. R


Blackburn, F.
Daines, P.
Grey, C. F.


Blenkinsop, A
Daiton, Rt. Hon. H.
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley


Boardman, H.
Davies, Harold (Leek)
Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)


Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G
Deer, G.
Hall, Rt. Hon. Glenvil (Colne Valley)


Bowden, H. W.
Delargy, H. J
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)




Hamilton, W. W.
Mason, Roy
Shackleton, E. A. A


Hannan, W.
Mayhew, C. P.
Short, E. W.


Hargreaves, A.
Mellish, R. J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Hastings, S.
Messer, Sir F.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Hayman, F. H.
Mikardo, Ian
Slater, Mrs H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Healey, Denis (Leeds S. E.)
Mitchison, G. R.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Herbison, Miss M.
Moody, A. S.
Smith, Norman (Nottingham, S.)


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.
Snow, J. W.


Hobson, C. R.
Morley, R.
Sorensen, R. W.


Holman, P.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Houghton, Douglas
Morrison, Rt. Hon. H. (Lewisham, S.)
Sparks, J. A.


Hoy, J. H.
Mort, D. L
Steele, T.


Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Moyle, A.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Mulley, F. W.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Murray, J. D.
Sylvester, G. O.


Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Thomas, Ivor Owen (Wrekin)


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Orbach, M.
Thornton, E.


Janner, B.
Oswald, T.
Tomney, F.


Jeger, Dr. Santo (St. Pancras, S.)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Viant, S. P.


Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Palmer, A. M. F.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Keenan, W.
Pannell, Charles
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Pargiter, G. A.
West, D. G.


King, Dr. H. M.
Parker, J.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Kinlay, J.
Paton, J.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Lee, Frederick (Newton)
Pearson, A.
Wigg, George


Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Popplewell, E.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)
Wilkins, W. A.


Lindgren, G. S.
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Pryde, D. J.
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Logan, D. G.
Reid, William (Camlachie)
Williams, W. T. (Hammersmith, S.)


MacColl, J. E.
Rhodes, H.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


McGovern, J.
Richards, R.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


McInnes, J.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Yates, V. F.


McKay, John (Wallsend)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)



McLeavy, F.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Ross, William
Mr. Holmes and


Manuel, A. C
Royle, C.
Mr. James Johnson.




NOES


Aitken, W. T.
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Holt, A. F.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. Clement (Montgomery)
Horobin, I. M.


Alport, C. J. M.
Deedes, W. F.
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Florence


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Digby, S. Wingfield
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)


Anstruther-Gray, Major W. J.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)


Arbuthnot, John
Doughty, C. J. A.
Hurd, A. R.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord Malcolm
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Drayson, G. B.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh, W.)


Baker, P. A. D.
Dugdale, Rt. Hon. Sir T. (Richmond)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.


Baldwin, A. E.
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)


Banks, Col. C.
Duthie, W. S.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)


Barber, Anthony
Elliot, Rt. Hon. W. E
Joynson-Hicks, Hon. L. W


Barlow, Sir John
Erroll, F. J.
Kaberry, D.


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Fell, A.
Kerr, H. W.


Beamish, Maj. Tufton
Finlay, Graeme
Lambert, Hon. G.


Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Fisher, Nigel
Law, Rt. Hon. R. K.


Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F
Leather, E. H. C.


Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.


Birch, Nigel
Foot, M. M.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)


Black, C. W.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Lindsay, Martin


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Linstead, Sir H. N.


Boyd-Carpenter, J. A.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Llewellyn, D. T.


Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)
Garner-Evans, E. H.
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (King's Norton)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
George, Rt. Hon. Maj. G. Lloyd
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.


Brooman-White, R. C.
Gower, H. R.
Longden, Gilbert


Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Graham, Sir Fergus
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)


Bullard, D. G.
Gridley, Sir Arnold
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Burden, F. F. A.
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
McAdden, S. J.


Campbell, Sir David
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S


Cary, Sir Robert
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.


Channon, H.
Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macclesfield)
McKibbin, A. J.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmouth, W.)
Harvie-Watt, Sir George
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John


Cole, Norman
Hay, John
Maclean, Fitzroy


Colegate, W. A.
Heath, Edward
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)


Conant, Maj. R. J. E.
Higgs, J. M. C.
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Hill, Dr. Charles (Luton)
Manningham-Buller, Sir R. E.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Markham, Major Sir S. F.


Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Marples, A. E.


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hirst, Geoffrey
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)


Crouch, R. F.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Maude, Angus


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hollis, M. C.
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.




Medlicott, Brig. F
Remnant, Hon. P
Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. P. L. (Hereford)


Mellor, Sir John
Renton, D. L. M.
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Molson, A. H. E.
Robertson, Sir David
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Monckton, Rt. Hon. Sir Walter
Robinson, Roland (Blackpool, S.)
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Moore, Lt.-Col. Sir Thomas
Robson-Brown, W.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Morrison, John (Salisbury)
Roper, Sir Harold
Tilney, John


Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard
Touche, Sir Gordon


Nabarro, G. D. N.
Russell, R. S.
Turner, H. F. L.


Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.
Tweedsmuir, Lady


Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur
Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.


Nield, Basil (Chester)
Scott, R. Donald
Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)


Nugent, G. R. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.
Ward, Hon. George (Worcester)


Nutting, Anthony
Shepherd, William
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Odey, G. W.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


O'Neill, Phelim (Co. Antrim, N)
Smithers, Peter (Winchester)
Watkinson, H. A.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. W. D.
Smithers, Sir Waldron (Orpington)
Webbe, Sir H. (London & Westminster)


Orr, Capt. L. P. S
Speir, R. M.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Osborne, C.
Spens, Sir Patrick (Kensington, S.)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Partridge, E.
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard
Williams, Sir Herbert (Croydon, E.)


Peake, Rt. Hon. O.
Stevens, G. P.
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Perkins, W. R. D.
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Peto, Brig. C. H. M.
Stoddart-Scott, Col. M.
Wills, G.


Powell, J. Enoch
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)
Studholme, H. G.
Wood, Hon. R.


Profumo, J. D.
Summers, G. S.



Raikes, Sir Victor
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Rayner, Brig. R.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)
Sir Cedric Drewe and


Redmayne, M.
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)
Mr. Oakshott.

It being after Seven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN left the Chair, further Proceeding standing postponed until after the consideration of Private Business set down by direction of THE CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS under Standing Order No. 7 (Time for taking Private Business).

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair.

CHESHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

7.9 p.m.

Sir Herbert Williams: I beg to move, to leave out "now," and at the end of the Question to add, "upon this day three months."
I should like to consult you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the procedure. This Bill and the Berkshire County Council Bill [Lords] in part cover the same ground, at least with regard to some of the particular Clauses to which we are taking exception. I think it would be a great convenience if the whole debate could be run solely on the Motion now under discussion, in the course of which hon. Members who wish to speak should draw attention to those Clauses of both Bills to which they take exception, that at the end of the debate we should give an unopposed Second Reading to the Cheshire Bill and that then

any Instructions we feel inclined to move should be moved without debate, and that the same procedure should take place in respect of the Berkshire Bill. That procedure, I think, would save everybody's time and would make the debate more convenient than if we conducted it otherwise. I shall be grateful if, Sir, with your approval and that of the House, that course could be adopted.

Mr. Speaker: If the House agrees, I am quite willing to adopt that procedure. Any general discussion must of course take place on the Question now before the House. When we come to the Instruction there will be no debate if this procedure is followed. If the procedure were not followed it would not be possible on the Instruction to have a wide discussion.

Sir H. Williams: In those circumstances there should be no discussion on any of the Instructions and only a vote, if the vote is called for.
As a rule, most Private Bills are introduced for some single major purpose, and the local authority concerned take the opportunity of putting into the Bill a variety of other powers which they wish to obtain. Some of these powers are a little strange, and after about 20 years of watching this kind of legislation I know that sometimes they are the result of the town hall having filed in a dusty pigeonhole a complaint, coming sometimes from one individual—I remember very well a case in Croydon—and sometimes being more generally supported.


Sometimes Clauses are inserted in the Private Bill by the Parliamentary Agents, who point out to the promoters that in recent years other local authorities have obtained similar powers. Sometimes a Bill which need not be more than 10 pages in length blossoms out, like the Cheshire County Council Bill, to 161 pages.
In the ordinary way, these Bills are not debated on Second Reading. They go before a Committee of four of our colleagues sitting in a semi-judicial capacity. This Committee can see witnesses and they are addressed by counsel. Everybody who has had the experience of appearing before out colleagues always pays the highest testimony to what a select tribunal of this House has always turned out to be. There is this disadvantage, that where major interests are concerned they are able to present a Petition. Those who study these Bills are aware that there are always provisos protecting the Postmaster-General, and in these days the British Transport Commission, the Secretary of State for War, the Secretary of State for Air, the Board of Admiralty and other big interests. Because they are big interests, the Promoters give them the provisos they need. When we come down to little John Citizen we find he has a poor deal. He is adversely affected by some of the Clauses and very often does not know about it.
It is much worse in a county than it is in a borough, because I understand that the county does not have a meeting and a poll. We all know that a borough has to have a town's meeting, that very often the sequel to a town's meeting is a poll and that many undesirable Clauses are knocked out by the electorate long before they are presented to this House. That protection does not exist, I think I am right in saying, in connection with county Bills. I have not the slightest doubt that the county of my birth, Cheshire, wants many of these powers, but I am quite satisfied that many of the powers they will never use. Cheshire has merely seen that some other county council has got them and says: "Let's have them too. Cheshire is as good as any other county." I am inclined to say that too, having been born in that county. I naturally am sympathetic to the county of my birth.
If hon. Members read these Clauses right through, let them say: "Suppose I

was the person affected by these Clauses; what would my reaction be?" I think that a large number of hon. and right hon. Members would say that the Clauses are undesirable. These things are never considered by the House as a whole, and are never subjected to that critical examination which we give to a Bill promoted by the Government or by a Private Member on either side, and in which we weigh up the significance of the Clauses.
I am glad to say that we have found Berkshire rather amenable. I have a connection with Berkshire too, because I was once the Member of Parliament for Reading, which is a county borough in Berkshire. I have had more influence in Berkshire than in Cheshire. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll), who has been conducting many of the negotiations, will tell hon. Members of the many reasonable offers which the Berkshire County Council have made, and which will make it unnecessary for us to challenge in a Division many of the Clauses in the Berkshire Bill. Unfortunately, the Cheshire Bill comes first. In respect of one of the Clauses, the Berkshire County Council have agreed to take the decision of the House in respect of the Cheshire Bill. It is a Clause where Berkshire have been found amenable but Cheshire have not, in regard to the hire of floral decorations. I will not go into details.
Some time ago the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison) introduced a Bill called the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which has left this House and is now in another place, where it has had a Second Reading. In that Bill one of the proposals related to dustbins. The Cheshire County Council have a dustbin Clause, numbered 137. It deals with points not covered by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering. The next Clause, number 138, does, but does not take the same form. I submit that it is absurd for this House to pass in the same Session provisions with regard to dustbins—which are very important from a sanitary point of view—in two different forms. The House would make a fool of itself if, in the same Session, it gave to all local authorities one lot of powers, and different powers to particular authorities. I hope that when this matter goes upstairs this matter will be looked at. On the Paper is an Instruction about Clauses 137 and 138, which


I do not intend to move. On Clause 151—(Hairdressers and Barbers)—I hope that the Cheshire people will accept the compromise we have already made in respect of Berkshire.
Now for Clause 190—(General Insurance Fund). When the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill was before this House, I referred to this matter. I took the precaution of saying that I happened to be a director of an insurance company. It is wrong for a local authority to attempt to build up a fund of this kind, because it would need many years. The fund could not be adequate for many years to meet the cost of any serious disaster. I had an experience in Croydon.
Some hon. Members may remember that about 18 years ago we had a disastrous typhoid epidemic in Croydon which killed about 100 of my constituents and made 200 of them seriously ill. The matter eventually went to the courts, and damages were given against the corporation. The total amount of the claims added up to £100,000. The corporation had not insured against any public liability in their General Powers Bill, so Croydon had to come forward with a Bill asking for permission to borrow £100,000 because we did not wish to impose that large sum on the rates in one year. Forthwith Croydon insured everything that they could see involved any positive risk.
In the discussion in Committee on the Local Government Bill I suggested that the London County Council might be able to carry insurance, but the debate convinced me that not even the London County Council was large enough, because it would take years to build up an insurance fund. With private insurance, when we insure with one company they re-insure with others against any big risk, so that it involves the whole insurance fund of the country. We have in that case a degree of protection that no local authority could possibly give to its public. In my constituency is a new school which cost £435,000. I do not know how long it would take to build up a fund enough to meet that risk. Take our town hall. I do not know what it would cost to replace it today—£1 million. It is probably much safer for Croydon to insure with a body or a group of bodies—for that is what insurance is—that can take that risk and spread it over vast resources.

Mr. Joseph T. Price: I am not denying that there is some force in the argument which the hon. Gentleman has deployed, but is he aware that three of the largest commercial undertakings in this country, Imperial Chemical Industries, Lever Bros., and the C.W.S., carry their own internal indemnity policy covering all their own risks? Would the hon. Gentleman have any objection to public authorities federating together to run their own insurance on the same lines?

Sir H. Williams: I do not mind anybody doing anything providing the results are satisfactory. It would take an enormous time to build up the requisite assets. I imagine that the resources available in respect of the risks of I.C.I. are very much greater than those Croydon Corporation have at their disposal, and Croydon is the 14th or 15th largest county borough in Britain.
But, if one is going to have this internal insurance, one must make sure that there is enough in the "kitty" before one stops insuring outside, otherwise if disaster comes in the first year the amount in the fund is negligible. Over the typhoid epidemic the Croydon Corporation had to pay out an enormous sum.

Dr. H. Morgan: Their potential assets are enormous.

Sir H. Williams: One cannot pay potential assets to people who are the dependents of victims of typhoid. They want something more substantial.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: Is the hon. Member not aware that local authorities are under no obligation whatsoever to insure?

Sir H. Williams: I know that, but if they are foolish enough not to insure at all the ratepayers ought to get rid of them.

Clause 233 makes provision as to motor vehicles let for hire. It provides that if, instead of plying for hire in the streets, people ply for hire from their own premises, their vehicles can be treated in exactly the same way as taxis. Whether that is justifiable or not is open to considerable doubt. If a man owns a car, I do not see why he should not ply to take people out without coming under the Town Police Clauses Act, 1847. I believe that this Clause arose because they


have one very deplorable car in Macclesfield which nearly shifted the bones out of the town clerk. That was the only precise evidence which was produced to us when I had the privilege of meeting members of Cheshire County Council a little earlier today.

Clause 234 deals with the collection and delivery of washing. It looks like undue competition with private enterprise, but I understand that a reasonable compromise has been established between the Launderers' Association and the county council. I have indicated in broad terms some of the things in this Bill which we do not like. I leave it to my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale to deal with them with more precision, and more particularly with the Berkshire County Council Bill.

Mr. Basil Nield: I think it is proper to say that I have been asked by the promoters of this Measure to present——

Mr. Speaker: Perhaps I misunderstood the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams). Did he move his Motion to postpone the Second Reading?

Sir H. Williams: Yes.

Mr. Speaker: Then I must call Mr. Erroll.

7.24 p.m.

Mr. F. J. Erroll: I beg to second the Amendment.
I am grateful for this opportunity of rising early in the evening to explain some of the progress which has been made behind the scenes in reaching agreement both on the Cheshire County Council Bill and the Berkshire County Council Bill, which you, Mr. Speaker, indicated might be discussed together.
When we first came to examine the Cheshire Bill, there were some 24 Clauses about which we had very grave doubts. However, as a result of discussions, the number still outstanding has been reduced to the few now on the Order Paper. I mention that particularly because the list on the Order Paper may still seem somewhat lengthy, but it is very much shorter than it would have been had it been necessary for it to go to Press two days earlier; and had the Second Reading been postponed for a day or two

it might have been possible to have an Order Paper even shorter than it is, as a result of further agreement.
The first Instruction on the Order Paper to the Committee on the Bill is to leave out Clause 64, which will authorise local authorities to hire floral decorations to outside bodies. This is a matter on which there is considerable opposition from the representatives of various florists and horticultural organisations. As can be gathered from the number of hon. Members on this side of the House who have tabled their names to the Instruction, no doubt this matter will be referred to again and in more detail. When I deal with the Berkshire County Council Bill I shall be able to inform the House that agreement has been reached with the Berkshire County Council——

Mr. J. A. Sparks: With whom has it been entered into? What knowledge has the House on this?

Mr. Erroll: There has been agreement between those who objected to the Berkshire County Council's proposals and the Berkshire county authority itself.

Mr. Sparks: Would it be in order, Mr. Speaker, to say who they were?

Mr. Speaker: I do not know whether it would be in order or not because I do not know who they are myself.

Mr. Erroll: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, if you have not noticed the names which appear above each Instruction. Those are the names of hon. Members taking objection to the Clauses in dispute, and they are the hon. Members who have been negotiating with the authorities concerned.

Mr. G. A. Pargiter: Can the hon. Member say whether he is acting on behalf of the Parliamentary Agents in this matter or is he acting individually?

Mr. Erroll: That can be answered quite simply. I am not acting on behalf of any Parliamentary Agents.
Berkshire County Council have proposed a compromise in regard to the florists which I understand is acceptable to those who objected to the Cause in its original state. It is hoped that Cheshire may be induced to find the Berkshire compromise acceptable.

Mr. Austen Albu: Can we know what it is?

Mr. Erroll: I think that I could deal with it better when we come to the Berkshire County Council Bill.

Mr. Harold Davies: Have hon. Members on both sides of the House who are from Cheshire received letters protesting about the letting for hire of plants and flowers and other floral decorations, for instance, or have those letters only come to hon. Members on one side of the House?

Mr. Erroll: I have no idea to whom people may have written. I only know that some of us on this side of the House have received letters. I should have thought that, if they were wise, those concerned would have written to hon. Members regardless of party.

Mr. J. T. Price: I happen to be a constituent of Altrincham and Sale and this is the first that I have heard of this matter. I have heard of no agitation in the district and I have received no instructions or protests from anybody.

Mr. Speaker: I do not see what this has to do with it. The Question is whether or no we read the Bill a Second time. I have agreed to the general debate on the subject matter of the Instructions set out in the Order Paper, but I did not mean that the debate should be so general as to include the question whether an hon. Member had received a letter or not.

Dr. Horace King: On a point of order. This is a very serious matter, with all respect, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) and the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) have constantly referred to "we" and have spoken of negotiations which took place between some hon. Members and various interests in Cheshire and Berkshire. Should not the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale make clear what hon. Members of this House have powers to conduct negotiations?

Sir H. Williams: Further to that point of order. May I be permitted to explain? We put down these various Motions and we were then approached by the authorities concerned. In accordance with the time-honoured practice of

this House, as Members of all parties have done, we had discussions. Other people came in and had separate discussions. I know that on the question of florists there were discussions with the National Farmers' Union and those representing the retail sale of flowers. We only appeared in the discussions as Members of Parliament, as we are entitled to do on any occasion whatsoever.

Mr. Sparks: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. What rights have three Members to enter into a binding agreement behind the back of this House, as it were, when this House might come to a totally different decision if it were free to exercise its judgment?

Mr. Speaker: We really ought to get on with this Bill. It is within the competence, power and privilege of any hon. Members of this House to put down an Amendment for the rejection of a Private Bill on Second Reading, and also to put on the Order Paper a Motion for an Instruction to the Committee. Hon. Members in doing so are merely exercising their rights as Members of Parliament. If subsequently those whose proposals are impeded by such action try to convince the hon. Members who have taken this action that they are wrong, or try to make some compromise which meets the point of view expressed, there is nothing wrong at all in that.

Mr. Erroll: I am grateful for your explanation, Mr. Speaker, because all I am trying to do is to explain to the House that, although the Order Paper seems so long, in fact a number of these Instructions will not be moved, at any rate by those whose names at present appear above them.
If I might go back to Clause 64 of the Cheshire Bill, which dealt with florists, I was saying that a compromise had been reached on a similar Clause in the Berkshire Bill whereby the hiring of such flowers would be limited to other local authorities and the premises of other local authorities. I understand that agreement meets with the approval of most of the parties affected, and it is very much to be hoped that the Cheshire County authority might see their way to accepting the Berkshire compromise. That, we understand, would meet the wishes of all concerned.
I should like to refer briefly to Clause 137 which deals with a charge being made for dustbins. A number of local authorities in the Cheshire area have dispensed with the power to make a charge of up to 5s. per annum for dustbins on the ground that the cost of collecting the money was greater than the yield of the collections. They are not entirely certain, however, that they are not acting outside their existing powers, and this Clause is therefore primarily for the removal of doubt. When the point was explained to us, that threw a different light on the Clause and so we would not wish to move the Instruction.

Mr. Harold Davies: Is that Clause 137?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, 137. Turning to Clause 151 with regard to the registration of barbers and hairdressers, Members may remember that I have from time to time protested against the registration of hairdressers in a particular area. I will not weary the House now with my detailed case, but the principal point was that even if established hairdressers desired this registration, it was undesirable that such registration should be carried out in respect of people who carried on a little hairdressing on the side particularly in their private homes or in offices or, as in one case which came to my notice, where a bus conductor cut the hair of his mates in the bus depot during the lunch interval. Clearly that type of sideline activity should not have been brought within the scope of a Clause to register all hairdressers.
I discussed this matter with the promoters of the Cheshire Bill, and they have suggested an Amendment which they are prepared to put in on the Committee stage which would limit the registration to the premises where hairdressing is being carried on by hairdressers. I feel that is a very satisfactory modification, and, in view of the assurances which I have received, I propose not to move the Instruction standing in my name on that subject.
The next two Instructions concern Clauses 190 and 191 to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East has already referred. Clause 233 deals with private hire cars as distinct from taxis. Taxis, as hon. Members know.

ply for hire on a public highway or on a public stand and are, therefore, subject to regulations and restrictions decided upon by each local authority as regards both their standards of maintenance and the charges which may be made for their use. Private hire cars, on the other hand, are subject to no such restrictions and can be modern, up-to-date limousines or ramshackle old boxes which are not really safe to be seen on the road at all.
Neither are they subject to any control over the fares which they may charge, which fluctuate considerably, from cut prices at popular times of the day in order to undercut the regular taxi trade, to prohibitive charges when people want to get home from the last bus or the last train at night. There are some of us who regard that as a perfectly sound form of private enterprise because it tends to increase the supply of taxis at the time when they are most required, namely, late at night, and to reduce an excessive supply of taxis during the day when there are more than are needed.
Furthermore, many of us feel that it is really for the public themselves to decide what sort of vehicle they want to hire; the public should be capable of deciding whether they wish a well-controlled taxi which may not be available at night or a good private hire car or a cheap and broken-down one, and they ought to be allowed to decide this for themselves. We have seen in the London area, where standards and controls are very strictly applied, a very serious decline in the taxi population——

Mr. Pargiter: Could the hon. Gentleman explain one point? He referred to the "ramshackle old boxes" and so on which, by implication, are obviously unsafe on the roads. Is it wrong for a county council to want to control them in some way in the interests of road safety?

Mr. Erroll: I agree that that is certainly a point, but it must be remembered that such vehicles could not get certificates of insurance unless they did meet the standards required by the insurance companies. Anyone who has owned an old car will know how difficult it can be to get an insurance policy renewed without a competent engineer's certificate. I think that is a matter which should be taken into account.
Many of us on this side of the House believe that, in the field of private hire, the whole question could be decided by the law of supply and demand, particularly in view of the decline in the taxi population of London, which is declining year after year, because the control exercised by the Metropolitan Police is excessively strict and the standards imposed are too onerous to be borne on the prices which are now permitted to be charged.
On the other hand, a case can be made for a control of this sort because it can be said that the private hire cars are obtaining an unfair advantage over the taxis which ply for public hire. Personally, I think that is questionable because the taxis have the great advantage of being able to stand on certain parts of the public highway set aside for the purpose, and these have a great advantage in picking up casual custom which the private hire car is not permitted to do. I have tried to put both sides of the case fairly so that a useful decision can perhaps be reached.
The last Clause in the Cheshire Bill to which I want to refer is Clause 234. This gives local authorities powers to collect and deliver washing to and from municipal laundries. They already have the power to operate municipal laundries, and this is merely an extension to enable them to collect and deliver the washing. Originally, the main objection to this Clause was that it might become a charge on the rates and that, in effect, a municipal laundry service might be subsidised out of the ratepayers' money and operate at the expense or to the detriment of the laundry firms. This objection has been taken care of by subsection (2).
The only other outstanding point was that the launderers in a particular area wished to know when the municipal laundry was setting up a collection and delivery service, so that they could be aware of this new development. The promoters of the Bill have agreed to insert an Amendment on the Committee stage which will require local authorities to publish an announcement in the local Press, saying when they intend to begin the service which this Clause will enable them to carry out.
Turning to the Berkshire Bill——

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: On a point of order. I have made a determined endeavour at the Vote Office to obtain a copy of the Berkshire County Council Bill, but I have not been able to do so. I am therefore at a very considerable disadvantage in endeavouring to follow the argument or to take part in the discussion, if I am allowed to do so.

Mr. Speaker: I am sorry that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has had that difficulty. It rests with the promoters of a Private Bill to supply a sufficient number of copies. It is not a matter for the House.

Mr. Erroll: My hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East has now supplied the hon. and gallant Member with a copy. In the Berkshire County Council Bill there were several Clauses about which doubt existed. The first was Clause 27. This Clause sought to prevent a person from allowing a vehicle, cattle or sheep to stray on to the grass verge of a housing estate, or other type of grass verge. Those of us who objected to the Clause felt that this power was going too wide, in that it might be applied against farmers who were driving cattle along a road from one field to another and who might be fined for allowing their herds to stray on to the grass verges. The promoters of the Bill pointed out that their real purpose in seeking this power was to prevent heavy motor vehicles from being parked on the grass verges at night instead of being put into the garages provided for them, and so causing a good deal of consequential damage.
As a result of what we have suggested, they have agreed to insert a small Amendment in Committee which will have the effect of limiting the Clause to motor vehicles. Thus the farmer will still be able to drive his herd along the roads of Berkshire without the fear of incurring any penalties.

Clause 132 is the same in the Berkshire Bill as it was in the Cheshire Bill, and the Berkshire authorities have agreed to insert a similar Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: The hon. Member repeatedly says that the sponsors of this Bill have agreed to insert Amendments on the Committee stage.


Surely it is not for the sponsors to insert Amendments? That is the duty and responsibility of the Committee themselves.

Mr. Speaker: The promoters can also make Amendments in their own Bill.

Mr. Greenwood: Surely they can only submit Amendments? They cannot insert them.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite true. The language is more applicable to Public Bill discussions than to those concerning a Private Bill. One frequently hears a Minister say, "When we come to another stage we will put in an Amendment to cover that point." The general tenor of the remarks of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Enroll) is quite clear, if his language is not quite applicable to this discussion.

Mr. Sparks: May it not be that if this House were called upon to make a decision whether or not this Clause should be added there might be a very different result? We should know what are the agreements, which are not incorporated in the Amendments.

Mr. Speaker: The Bill will come back to the House on Third Reading. If the House agrees to the Second Reading, it will go to a Committee of Members of this House first, when these matters can be properly discussed.

Mr. Erroll: I am in a little difficulty. In trying to be brief I have perhaps not been giving a sufficient explanation. I shall certainly try to make my explanation a little fuller, should hon. Members prefer it. The hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks) is quite at liberty to table an Amendment or to speak to any of these. He is as free to do what I am doing now as in the past.
With regard to hairdressers, the promoters have agreed to submit an Amendment similar to that which the Cheshire County Council are going to submit.
Clause 182 is of considerable importance for Berkshire. It gives the county authority power to do printing for other local authorities. The county authority have always had power to do printing for their own offices and departments, but they now have a certain surplus capacity of a modest sort, and they would like to make this surplus capacity available to

other and smaller local authorities who would not find it worth while to install printing equipment of their own. "Printing plant" is perhaps a rather grandiose phrase for what are, in fact, two large, modern duplicators or Rotaprinters, but they are efficient machines and their surplus capacity could be usefully made available to other local authorities who might want small Rotaprinting jobs carried out.
Some bodies and organisations have felt that this would be an undesirable power to grant to the Berkshire County Council, as they might be tempted to set up a large printing establishment and do a great deal of contract printing for local authorities. The county council have no intention of doing that and have prepared an Amendment, for submission to the Committee, to limit the operations of this Clause to such printing as could have been carried out without the existence of this Clause.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: Does that mean that this Clause has been withdrawn?

Mr. Erroll: No, the Clause has not been withdrawn, but the Instruction would not now be moved by the Members who have at present put their names to it. There is some little doubt whether the Amendment as at present suggested entirely and exactly meets the point, but the promoters have undertaken to look into the matter and make any further modification that may be necessary to meet the point of view of those who still object to the powers being granted.
Clause 188 is a Clause which I am sure will appeal to hon. Members opposite, since it enables smaller local authorities to take advantage of the ability of a county authority to buy goods in large quantities at suitable discounts. The county authority will be able to supply the smaller authorities with stationery, pencils, goods, and supplies of one sort and another and, by placing the orders for these goods in bulk, to get trade discounts, which they will be able to pass on to the smaller authorities.
In this case the Instruction was tabled solely because it was felt that they were perhaps seeking to supply too wide an area of semi-public authorities, going even as far as the University Medical School, which I understand does not yet exist in the area of this particular county.


The promoters have agreed to submit an Amendment which removes the University Medical School from the Clause and, that undertaking having been given, we should not propose to move the Instruction.

Mr. J. T. Price: On a point of order. Is the House not entitled at this stage to have some further information as to the source of these objections to various Clauses to which the hon. Member is constantly referring?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Mr. Hopkin Morris): That is not a point of order.

Mr. Erroll: I shall be very glad to inform my constituent afterwards to settle any doubts he may have in mind.
The last Clause mentioned on the Notice Paper in connection with the Berkshire County Council Bill is Clause 189. This deals with the power to hire flowers and plants. Agreement has been reached on that. Some of my hon. Friends would like to speak to that in some detail.
I apologise to the House for the length of my speech. I have tried to make it brief, but I felt it was important to explain why the Motions on the Order Paper, which had seemed so numerous, have been considerably reduced by discussion with the parties concerned. It looks at the moment as though only the Cheshire County Council Bill will be opposed, and that the Berkshire County Council Bill will be able to go through unopposed, unless there are some hon. Members who wish otherwise.

7.51 p.m.

Mr. Basil Nield: Representing the county town of Cheshire, I am very glad to have the opportunity of supporting this Measure as a whole and presenting certain arguments to the House in answer to some of the objections that have been raised. I ought to make it clear at once, as I have to the promoters, that I cannot support one of the Clauses, namely, Clause 64; but, for the rest, I am satisfied that I can commend the Clauses to the House, knowing that they will be considered later on with closer scrutiny before our colleagues on the Committee.
I was very glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) say that it is not proposed to

oppose the Second Reading. Glad, but not surprised; for this Measure contains 256 Clauses, and only seven are objected to, and some of those are no longer objected to; and so it would indeed be surprising if the Measure were opposed on Second Reading. The position is that the county is a large one with a large population, and they seek to follow the example of nearly all the larger county councils who, in recent years, have sought and obtained general powers under Private Bills.
I desire to deal with some of the considerations in the proposed Instructions, which may or may not be moved, which are set out on the Notice Paper. I shall say little about those it is proposed not to move. As to Clause 64, I pass over it because I cannot support it myself, and I turn to Clause 137. I understand from my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) that the Instruction will not be moved, but I think that I ought to say just a word or two about it. The Clause relates to the provision, maintenance and renewal of dustbins, and, quite shortly, the arguments about it are these.
First, the charge of 2s. 6d., as I think it is under the existing law, and 5s. proposed in a Bill which has gone to another place, is-really hardly worth collecting, the cost of administration and collection is too great. Second, once free dustbins are provided it is likely that all the ratepayers will take advantage of them so that the burden will fall equally. But the most important is the third reason, that it is much hoped that local authorities will be able to adopt improved methods of refuse collection if the dustbins in their areas are their own property. I am glad that my hon. Friend, who sought at first to oppose this, did not in fact do so.
The next Clause mentioned on the Paper relates to hairdressers' and barbers' establishments. My hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale assured the House that some arrangement may be agreed to in regard to it. I should have thought that there could have been but little objection fundamentally to the purpose of this Clause, which is aimed at a general standard of cleanliness in those establishments. I believe it to be the position, though I am open to correction on this point, that it has the approval


of the National Hairdressers' Federation. By-laws in regard to this have been circulated to all the local authorities in the county and all the medical officers, and they have received general acceptance. They are proposed by-laws, or by-laws in fact of another authority. The Clause imposes no great burden, and, indeed, any normal establishment would abide by these provisions.
I come to Clause 190, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East, and which relates to insurance, which is a more difficult problem, I entirely agree. Under Clause 190 it is desired to enable the county council to establish an insurance fund to carry such risks as may be specified in a resolution. Arguments have been advanced against this. It is proper, I think, to point out that there are three recent precedents for it, the Essex and Glamorganshire Acts of 1952 and the Nottinghamshire Act of 1951.
My hon. Friend's opposition was along the lines that it might be financially difficult for the county to discharge its ultimate obligations. The county has very considerable rateable resources, a rateable value of rather over £5½ million, and a penny rate which produces something over £22,000. As I have already said, it is large in size and population, and it is submitted that some considerable financial saving would be effected if this scheme were found acceptable. The way I present it to the House is this. This is one of the Clauses that should be at any rate considered by the Committee, when our colleagues will hear evidence upon it; and we must have in mind that when a Clause is petitioned against it is up to those who seek to have it in their Bill to establish their case.
Clause 191 follows closely upon Clause 190, extending the provisions of Clause 190 to the Cheshire police authority, and the reason for that is that that authority was established by an Order of the Secretary of State under the 1946 Act which provides the police for the administrative and for the county borough of Cheshire itself, and it is thought right that it should be extended.
Clause 233 is the next mentioned on the Paper. I think it has not been said that the Instruction is to be withdrawn, but

there was some doubt expressed in regard to it.

Mr. W. R. Williams: As a large number of us have not a copy of the Bill, will the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he discusses a Clause, briefly indicate what it does?

Mr. Nield: I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman. I shall certainly do so, because I appreciate the difficulty of not having the Bill. Clause 233 is that which enables by-laws to be made in respect of private hire cars such as would be made and are made in the case of hackney carriages under the 1847 Act. It applies to vehicles which ply for hire on private premises. The purpose of the hackney carriage by-laws is to provide the travelling public with the minimum standard of fitness of the vehicles and with a reasonable scale of tariffs, and it is the promoters case that similar requirements should obtain in respect of private hire cars. It would, I think, be the general view of hon. Members that one does not desire to impose extravagant or too stringent conditions on anybody who is earning a livelihood in this or in any other way; but that some degree, as, I say, the minimum, of fitness should be required, is, I would submit, reasonable.
In regard to this the hon. Member for Croydon, East withdrew, or sought to withdraw, or said that he was going to withdraw, one obstruction because a similar Clause had been accepted in this Session. Therefore I have to remind the House that a Clause, similar to Clause 233, dealing with private hire cars was in fact passed by this House in this Session in the Tynemouth Corporation Bill, Clause 61. I also understand that there has been no objection lodged against this Clause.
Finally, we come to Clause 234, the substance of which I will try to explain. This Clause provides that a local authority which has provided wash houses may collect clothing to be washed there and deliver clothing after it has been washed. These are rather domestic problems, but they are problems of considerable importance. The local authority must charge enough to cover the expenses of that service. In other words, nothing falls upon the rates. This, in point of fact, is one of the model Clauses. It was similarly provided in the Nottinghamshire Act, 1951.
The real purpose can be stated in this way. When these public wash houses were erected they were situated in the populous areas, for the convenience of the people using them, but recently there have been many new housing estates. From these housing estates there is a journey to be made to the wash houses, and it is thought better to provide this service at an economic price, without resort to the rates, than to build new wash houses in the newly built-up areas. This, I submit, is the sort of matter which should meet with general approval, and I was glad to hear my hon. Friend say that some arrangement and adjustment could be reached in regard to the price.

Mr. Sparks: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman say something about Clause 64, which, he said, he did not agree with? I do not think that either he or the two previous hon. Members who spoke said anything about that Clause except that they disagreed with it. It is an important matter because most urban district councils have parks, open spaces and nurseries from which they produce floral features, and it seems unreasonable to deny them the opportunity provided for in that Clause.

Mr. Nield: I did not deal with it because I was giving as much support as I could generally to the Measure. Since the hon. Gentleman has asked me the question, it is only courteous and, I think, right to give him an answer, as I conceive it to be. I think that it is this: That to empower local authorities to provide and charge for this service would be to create unfair competition for those who earn their livelihood by providing this service, and for this reason—that the local authorities could produce that which they hire without paying for the production out of the rates. On the other hand, the trader, very often quite modest traders in the market garden field, and the florists must all discharge from their own resources their overhead expenses and this, I submit with great respect, imposes a degree of unfair competition which the House should not agree to.
I have deliberately and, I hope, very moderately put forward my own personal views with regard to this matter. I am well aware of the support which the Clause attracts, and I am also aware of

the support which I have for my opposition to the Clause. I do not think that it is the sort of thing that I ought to be questioned about. I have given my view, and it may be right or it may be wrong, but, as I say, that is really the only Clause to which I seriously object.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman not aware that had it not been for the tremendous stocks of horticultural plants and flowers of all kinds raised by the local authorities many of the floral decorations provided in this City during the Coronation and many other cities in this land would never have been possible, because it is the surplus of these plants raised in public parks which has been able to make the Coronation the floral success which it has been?

Mr. Nield: I do not propose to give a legal view on this. But, without prejudice, I do not think that there is anything to prevent a local authority with parks and gardens from decorating their own town hall, and that I think is really the situation. I have tried to put the matter as reasonably as I can before the House. It is quite clear, in my submission, that no one would seek to deprive the County Council of the general powers which they seek under this Measure. That must be for the general good and, if it is, I hope that it will receive general acceptance.
So far as the objected Clauses are concerned, apart from Clause 64, which I have dealt with, they are matters which, I think, should be considered by our colleagues in Select Committee. We can rely with every confidence on our colleagues to come to a conclusion which they think is right.

8.8 p.m.

Mr. F. Blackburn: I think that for the sake of the accuracy of the records of this House about who approached who, it ought to be stated that the first approach was made by the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) to the Cheshire County Council and not by the Cheshire County Council promoters to the hon. Member. As a result of that request of the hon. Member for Croydon, East and his group, the Cheshire County Council prepared a dossier dealing with certain Clauses of this Bill.
There is a good deal said about powers being taken away from local authorities,


and yet as soon as a local authority comes forward to try to clarify the position and perhaps get some extension of its powers there is immediate opposition. There is a good deal said, too, about the way in which the rates are increasing. As soon as something is done which will go some way towards ameliorating the rates or preventing money from being wasted we immediately get opposition. I am surprised at the opposition to this Bill coming from the other side of the House.
Here we have a Conservative controlled county council with practically every local authority within its area Conservative controlled, and yet when a Bill is brought forward by general agreement between the county council and the local authorities, the opposition comes from that side. This is rather unreasonable. It is rather amazing.

Mr. David Jones: Perhaps the chamber of commerce do not like it.

Mr. Blackburn: I think it is generally known that the Cheshire County Council, and, I believe, the Berkshire County Council also, are Conservative-controlled, but it does not seem that the Conservatives in one part of the country agree with what Conservatives want in another part of the country.
With regard to the most contentious of the Clauses—I think there will be the greatest opposition to Clause 64—I was surprised to note the difference in the names appearing on page 211 of the Order Paper against Clause 64 and those appearing on page 213 in opposition to Clause 189 of the Berkshire Bill. For the benefit of Members who do not have a copy of the Cheshire County Council Bill, I will read Clause 64:
An urban district council may let on hire plants flowers and other floral decorations and may make such charges therefor as they may think fit.
There is one very surprising omission from the list of names appearing on page 213. That is, the name of the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd), whose constituency is in Berkshire. I hope that it does not mean that he is opposed to the Cheshire County Council having certain powers but is quite content that Berkshire should have them. No doubt the hon. Member will be able to explain the position.

Mr. J. T. Price: Sheer expediency.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: May I draw my hon. Friend's attention to the fact that in connection with the Berkshire County Council Bill there does not appear on the Order Paper the name of any hon. Member, Conservative or otherwise, who represents a constituency in Berkshire?

Mr. Blackburn: I had noticed that.
The hon. Member for Croydon, East, when moving his Amendment, referred to the size of the Bill and said that half the powers in it were never wanted. But it is not those powers that the hon. Member is opposing. He and his colleagues oppose the powers in the Bill which are wanted. Fortunately, they have withdrawn some of their first objections, and perhaps wisely, because they would have found difficulty in making out a case for their Amendment as first tabled. What they have tried to do eventually, I think, is to bring the Cheshire Bill and the Berkshire Bill into line. I do not think they have quite done that, however, because whilst they oppose Clause 190 in the Cheshire Bill, which deals with the setting up of an insurance fund, they do not oppose Clause 157 in the Berkshire Bill.

Mr. Erroll: May I make a brief explanation? Berkshire agreed to abide by whatever decision was reached in regard to Cheshire in this matter, thus making it unnecessary to take the Amendment twice and thus, perhaps, to avoid two Divisions, which would all take up the time of the House, an arrangement which is often resorted to and is usually found convenient by all concerned.

Mr. Blackburn: It is also true, I believe, that the Berkshire County Council agreed to abide by the decision on other Clauses in the Cheshire Bill, and yet there are Amendments down to both Bills. The point which the hon. Member makes does not, therefore, carry very much weight.
There seems to be a good deal of anxiety concerning with whom these arrangements are made. There is an organisation known as what the hon. Member for Croydon, East calls "my Group," who have had some dealings with the promoters of both the Cheshire


Bill and the Berkshire Bill; and I presume that the promoters of the Berkshire Bill must have had discussion with Berkshire Members, just as the Cheshire Bill promoters have had consultations with Cheshire Members.
Let me come to Clause 64. It ought to be stated, first, that authorities have a right to expect a certain consistency about the decisions which are made in this House. These powers have recently been given to other authorities; in 1952 they were given in the Leamington Corporation Act and the Preston Corporation Act. If the present Bill is forced to a Division—I hope it will not be; I hope hon. Members opposite will allow it to go through as it stands—we will expect that all the Members from Nottinghamshire, Leamington, Preston, Swindon, Worcester, Wolverhampton and Hudders-field will wish to give to Cheshire the powers which those other places have been given in recent years.
There is some misunderstanding about Clause 64. The Cheshire County Council do not want this power for themselves, because they have no parks department. The power is wanted on behalf of the local authorities within Cheshire and is desired by all of them. As I said earlier, the Bill is an agreed Measure between the county council and the smaller authorities within the area.
It has been argued that if this power is given to the local authorities, it will be unfair competition with the florists and market gardeners.

Mr. Gerald Nabarro: Hear, hear.

Mr. Blackburn: I know I am on the right side, because the hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) disagrees with me. It is true that in certain parts of Cheshire there are market gardeners who would be able to supply this service, but in other parts of Cheshire that is not true at all.

Mr. Nabarro: It is true in Worcestershire.

Mr. Blackburn: I ask for your protection, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. We are dealing, not with Worcestershire, but with the Cheshire County Council Bill.

Mr. Nabarro: The hon. Member pleaded a moment ago that we ought to

have consistency in these Bills. It is a matter of great interest in Worcestershire that powers of this kind, to lend or to hire floral works, should not be granted to a local authority in view of the interests of the horticultural community.

Mr. Sparks: rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think it would be well if Members kept their interventions for their own speeches.

Mr. Blackburn: I do not think that in many parts of Cheshire there is any question of competition between florists und market gardeners and the local authority, because if this service is not supplied by the local authority it will not be supplied at all.

Hon. Members: Why?

Sir Frederick Messer: Because they are not there.

Mr. Sparks: Would it not provide an income for the ratepayers?

Mr. Blackburn: In a good many of the areas of the smaller local authorities, there is not a florist with a business of sufficient size to provide the service. When it comes to a matter of floral decorations for social affairs, it is a question not so much of cut flowers as of plants, which are not stocked by the average florist in the small town.
I have come to the conclusion that a good many hon. Members opposite have never seen what a good local authority can do in the way of floral decorations. In the constituency of Stalybridge and Hyde we have some excellent local authorities and parks departments. I invite hon. Members to come along and see what can be done, and I think they would be convinced that no small florist could achieve what those authorities have done. In any case, is there anything wrong with a local authority being able to make a charge to pay for some service and helping to relieve the rates?
If hon. Members argue against this Clause, they must argue against everything by which a local authority comes into the everyday life of the people-even so far as public libraries are concerned. There are libraries in shops, but I have never heard anyone suggest that we should do away with public libraries because it is unfair competition with libraries in shops. I hope that on Clause


64 Cheshire County Council will have the support of hon. Members of this House and, although I am not concerned with Berkshire County Council, I hope, hon. Members will support Clause 189 of that Bill.
The next Clause to which there was opposition is Clause 137, but I understand that the group have suggested that this will not be taken to a Division. I am not a lawyer, but I am not sure that even if it had been taken to a Division it would have made any difference. I believe the Clause is merely put down for clarification and explanation. According to subsection (3) of Section 75 of the Public Health Act, 1936, a local authority is given power to supply dustbins, and that Act says:
the authority may make in respect of each dustbin provided by them such annual charge not exceeding two shillings and sixpence as they think proper.
"May make" are, I think, the operative words.
Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill recently brought before the House that 2s. 6d. was altered to 5s. but, according to my reading, if they may make a charge not exceeding 2s. 6d. they may make a charge of nothing. I am glad to know that the dustbin question has been settled. The town clerk of one town in my constituency said at the weekend that he hoped it would be settled because they have to waste so much time going to the courts to decide whether the owner or occupier should provide a dustbin. The great advantage of the Clause, which is not compulsory but permissive, is that it will do away with all the controversy about the owner or occupier providing a dustbin and we know that the standard of dustbins will be good.
I understand that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale is not pressing the Amendment in regard to Clause 151, which deals with hairdressing establishments——

Mr. Erroll: I shall not be moving that Amendment.

Mr. Blackburn: The hon. Member will not be moving the Amendment because of some compromise arrived at with the promoters of the Bill. I have seen the compromise and, as far as I can judge from the wording, I then saw it takes the stress

away from "person" and puts it on "premises." But I think that in the long run it does not make any difference at all. In fact, I do not think it would prevent any hon. Member opposite who wanted his wife to cut his hair from having that ceremony performed at home even if the Clause were left as it is. I will not spend more time on that Clause as there seems to be general agreement about it.
Clause 190 deals with a general insurance fund and, for the benefit of my hon. Friends, I will read the first subsection, which says that a county council:
may establish a fund to be called 'the insurance fund' with a view to providing a sum of money which shall be available for making good such losses damages costs and expenses as may from time to time arise in respect of such risks as may be specified by a resolution of the Council
without prejudice to the right to reinsure in an insurance fund against the whole or part of such risks. Premiums equivalent to normal insurance premiums may be paid into the insurance fund annually. They may be discontinued, but it reduces the limit if there is a resolution.
I cannot believe that hon. Members opposite who have put down the Amendment will press it to a Division since they have not put down Amendments against Clause 157 of the Berkshire Bill.

Sir H. Williams: rose——

Mr. Blackburn: If the hon. Member had remained in the House he would have found that his hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale had raised exactly the point he wishes to raise and that it did not satisfy us then.

Mr. Erroll: It was obvious that the hon. Member could not understand the point made.

Mr. Blackburn: I certainly understood the point, but I also understood the point about other Clauses in the Bill. On Clause 190 I think hon. Members will remember that a Clause to give local authorities power to form insurance funds came before the House in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill and was very narrowly defeated. I think the voting was 17 to 15. But that was a Clause to give every local authority the power to establish an insurance fund, a matter very different from the powers which are asked for by Cheshire County Council in this Clause.


There is a big difference between the financial stability of a county council with a rateable value of more than £5½ million and some of the very small local authorities of the country. If I remember rightly, some hon. Members who were opposing that Clause in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill did say that probably a case could be made out for the larger local authorities to have this power.
There is no doubt that a local authority with a rateable value of more than £5½ million and where a penny rate brings in more than £22,000, is in a position to establish an insurance fund. I think the hon. Member for Croydon, East misunderstood the purpose of the county council in this Bill, because, if this Clause goes through, it would not be their intention to dispense immediately and entirely with outside insurance. It says it is without prejudice to the right to reinsure in an insurance fund
against the whole or any part of allowing of the specified risks.
In any case, as was pointed out by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Crewe (Mr. Scholefield Allen), there is no statutory obligation upon a county council to insure. Therefore, if the Bill were dropped they could carry on without insuring in outside insurance companies and without setting up an insurance fund. If hon. Members give further consideration to that Clause, I think they will withdraw their opposition to it. It is a matter which I think could well be left to the local authority to decide what they shall insure and what action they shall take.
I need not say much about Clause 191, which refers to the Cheshire Police authority. It is brought forward because the Cheshire Police authority was established by the order of the Home Secretary under the Police Act, 1946, and it provides the police service throughout the administrative county of Chester and the county borough of Chester and, therefore, would not be covered by Clause 190.
Clause 233 relates to motor vehicles. Again I am not quite certain whether that Amendment is being pressed or not, but it seems to me that if it is right that the owner of a hackney carriage should be subject, under the 1847 Act, to certain regulations, the owner of a private-hire

vehicle should also be subject to the same regulations. The mere fact that he keeps it on private premises should not alter that position. To me it is a reasonable Clause which has been brought forward in the Bill.
Turning to Clause 234, I had better tell my hon. Friends who have not a copy of the Bill that a local authority which has provided a public washhouse may collect and deliver clothes and other washing and they must charge enough to cover their expenses. It seems strange that anyone should object to such a provision. If a local authority has a public washhouse surely no one would object to it being able to collect and deliver the washing. I understand that the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale and the opposition on the other side of the House—I take it that he is speaking for the whole opposition although I do not understand how that has come about—that provided "after the appointed day" is inserted in this Clause they will accept the position. The insertion of those words would merely mean that a public poll could be held if there was a sufficient demand for it.
I think that Members will agree that there is not a great deal of substance in the opposition which has been tabled to the Cheshire County Council Bill. I was sorry, when I heard the hon. Member for Croydon, East begin his speech, that he did not do so with the words, "We do not intend to divide on this Bill but have merely put forward our Amendments in order to have a general discussion," which I believe was the way he started his speech on the Rochester Bill last year. The Clauses of the Bill are reasonable, and I certainly hope that the support of Members on both sides of the House will be forthcoming for the Measure.
This is not a party political matter—[HON. MEMBERS: "You made it one."] I emphasise that it is not a party political matter because this is a Bill, as I stressed before, which is brought forward by a county council which has a predominantly Tory majority. I think that there are about 69 councillors and 23 aldermen, and, speaking from memory, there are, I believe, 11 Labour Members. Therefore, I am right in stressing that this is a predominantly Conservative council. I hope that hon. Members opposite will support their Conservative


colleagues and will vote for the Bill and the whole Bill, not for certain Clauses of it.

8.33 p.m.

Air Commodore A. V. Harvey: The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) has made fairly heavy weather of the whole Bill. There are 256 Clauses, and speaking, I think for my colleagues, certainly for myself, the objection is really to one Clause. Even if the Cheshire County Council were 100 per cent. Conservative, if we objected to the Bill we should still say what we felt about it. Fortunately on this side of the House we are not so party bound that we are afraid to express an opinion.
The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde talked about public libraries. I do not think that there is any analogy in that. One goes there and, apart from a charge for taking a book back after the proper time, the book is free; it is an entirely different matter. I think that the hon. Member was very confused in comparing a public library with the hire of flowers.
This Bill passed through all its stages in another place, and unfortunately there was no debate. I wish there had been because many noble Lords in another place have a considerable knowledge of horticulture. [Interruption.] If the hon. and gallant Member has any statement to make or question to ask, I wish he would rise and do so instead of muttering to himself so that no one can really hear what he is saying.

Lieut.-Colonel Lipton: I was just going to say that the hon. and gallant Member was rather unfair in his criticism of another place. The wise people sitting in another place were so impressed by the virtues of the Bill that they did not seek to raise any of these foolish objections which are now being raised here.

Air Commodore Harvey: As I said earlier, we are concerned only with one Clause out of 256.
I am informed that this Bill has been objected to, so far as Clause 64 is concerned, by the National Farmers' Union, the British Flower Industry Association,

the Florists' Telegraph Delivery Association and the Retail Flower Traders' Association.

Mr. Sparks: Surely the hon. and gallant Gentleman is not opposed to ratepayers receiving an income?

Air Commodore Harvey: If the hon. Gentleman can contain himself for a few moments, he will find that I shall deal with that. I am concerned also with people in my constituency who make their living by growing and selling flowers. I have no objection to a local authority selling flowers to a non-profit-making organisation. In my constituency there was recently a demand for flowers such as does not happen very often. A large number of flowers were required and they were not readily available; they were obtained from another local authority, and I think that quite fair.
While we are discussing this matter, it might be a good thing to go further into it. Some local authorities have been trading in the sale of flowers and breaking the law by so doing, and covering it up under transport charges. It would be as well for us to understand what has been going on for a great many years. If the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) who is well versed in county matters, was aware of that, he should have looked into it a few years ago when he was Secretary of State for the Home Department.

Mr. Ede: I was responsible only for the Home Department.

Air Commodore Harvey: But there is a way of approaching these matters through the Home Department.

Mr. J. T. Price: rose——

Air Commodore Harvey: No, I shall not give way; I will make my speech in my own way.
Though I do not sell flowers I am connected with a business in which seeds are prepared from which they are grown. It may well be that the business with which I am connected will lose by not being able to supply seeds to local authorities. But I think that this is a matter of principle——

Mr. W. R. Williams: On a point of order. May candles be brought in? Not only is it difficult to see any point in the


argument of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, but it is almost impossible to see the hon. and gallant Gentleman himself.

Air Commodore Harvey: The hon. Member usually shows a little more courtesy than he has exhibited this evening; but I do not mind.
In the country, and certainly in my constituency, there are market gardeners, florists and horticulturists who grow flowers for a living. They have to contend with a certain amount of foreign competition and also with the weather. Today it is not easy to make a living from growing flowers, other than in the Scilly Isles or other special parts of the country. I wish to see this Clause omitted completely, except that flowers may be sold to non-profit-making organisations, and I hope that hon. Members on this side of the House will be firm on that point.

8.40 p.m.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I am happy, on behalf of the Cheshire County Council, to support this Bill and all the Clauses objected to by a few of the hon. Members opposite. I am certain that a large number of hon. Members opposite will go into the Division Lobby on behalf of that Conservative County Council.
As the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield (Air Commodore Harvey) has said, this Bill has been through the other place. The traditional home of Toryism, Conservatism and reaction has seen nothing objectionable in it. It has been through a Committee presided over by a Member of that noble House, and now it has come to us. It remains for the hon. Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) to run his group of objectors to certain Clauses of the Bill. He referred constantly to "my group." We on this side of the House and a large number of the reasonable hon. Gentlemen opposite know exactly what he meant by those words. They are the died-in-the-wool last-ditch defenders of every kind of private enterprise—even the private enterprise of the man who lets out on hire a ramshackle motor car.

Air Commodore Harvey: Would the hon. and learned Gentleman explain what he means and give the name of the vehicle concerned?

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I give to the hon. and gallant Gentleman the name of the clerk to his own county council who is most interested in the approval of Clause 64 because his council have to go to Salford to get flowers. The hon. and gallant Gentleman knows quite well that his own council desire the Clause to be passed.
This Bill has been passed by the other place. Who else supports it? The Cheshire County Council support it. My hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) told us that that council is predominantly, almost overwhelmingly, Conservative. One hon. Member opposite asked what representations had been made about this Bill by constituents. I have had one letter from one firm in one of the smaller urban authorities in my constituency. I was asked to oppose this Clause. But I am in considerable difficulty because the chairman of the county council, Alderman Wesley Emberton, is also a constituent of mine, and as chairman of the county council he asks me to give the council every support in getting this Bill through. This is the only occasion that I can remember when he and I have been in complete agreement. I am happy to give him my support.
I turn to the various Clauses. The first one objected to is the floral one. If there were an active private enterprise floral market in the Cheshire area perhaps there would be some point in the objection. I appeal not to the hon. Member for Croydon, East and the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. C. S. Taylor) who have no interest in Cheshire at all——

Mr. Nabarro: We have an interest in flowers.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: rose——

Mr. Scholefield Allen: I will give way to any Cheshire Member.

Mr. Taylor: The hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned my name.

Mr. Scholefield Allen: We are discussing, not the difficulties of Eastbourne, but those of certain rural and urban district councils in Cheshire who wish to have floral displays when they organise public functions. I am instructed on their behalf that they cannot get them except from the


local authority. The clerk to the county council in the constituency of the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield, as I have already pointed out, had to go outside Cheshire to Salford to get flowers for a display. There is a public demand in many parts of Cheshire for the supply of plants and flowers on hire by local authorities, and this is an attempt to meet a public demand.
In most cases, I can assure the reasonable hon. Members opposite, as a Cheshire man and having some knowledge of this matter, that there is no other source from which they can get them. If this were a demand to sell flowers, there might be some ground for the opposition, but all that is sought here is power to let out on hire plants, flowers and other floral decorations and to make charges. Surely the ratepayers are entitled, if they let out their plants and flowers on hire, to have some recompense for it? Is it objected that the ratepayers are getting something out of their parks and gardens? Yes, certainly, it is; but Eastbourne does it.
As the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield pointed out, this has been going on for some time, and they have, in fact, been letting out plants and covering themselves by a charge for the labour. All that is required here is that we should regularise the position. It is no part of the local authority's wishes to go into the private enterprise floral market. They do not want to do that. They simply want these powers in order to be able to supply plants on hire where there is a public demand for them and where there is no other source of supply.
Let me now turn to the dustbin Clause, which is Clause 138. The county council desire to make no charge for dustbins, and "my group" opposes that provision. Both Eastbourne and Croydon are in "my group." Clause 37 is no longer being opposed, nor is Clause 151. Why should objection be taken to making barbers' shops hygienic and clean, and why should the county council be involved in time, trouble and expense in meeting frivolous objections of that kind? If hon. Members opposite really want to save the burden on the ratepayers, they should not frivolously oppose a responsible council when it is asking for reasonable powers.
Let us come now to what is, perhaps, the really contentious Clause—Clause 190—which seeks to set up a general insurance fund. There are arguments both ways, and I have listened to them, but here we are not dealing with a small authority of low rateable value. The Cheshire County Council are a large authority with a rateable value of £5½ million and the product of a penny rate is £22,000. The council need not insure at all, but prudently, of course, they would do. There can be no real objection if such a responsible body desire to create an insurance fund of their own, nor to such a powerful body covering their own risks.
The hon. Member for Croydon, East said that this would lead to disaster in the first 12 months. The council have powers of borrowing money to meet contingencies of that kind, and if they care to maintain their own insurance fund, they will, in fact, be saving the ratepayers a considerable amount of money. The cost of administering an insurance company is quite high and includes an agent's commission of 15 per cent. The county council would save that commission, and the administrative work would be done within the council by its own legal and financial officers as a result of which, I have no doubt, the ratepayer would benefit considerably.
I think it was my hon. Friend the Member for Westhoughton (Mr. J. T. Price) who pointed out that some of the large private enterprises, such as I.C.I. and Lever Bros., carry their own insurances. Surely, if such bodies can do it, a body like the Cheshire County Council can, in its discretion, embark upon this enterprise. I will not appeal to "my group" because they will vote against anything, even without thought.
It is unfortunate that so many hon. Members opposite are not present and, therefore, will not hear the case for the county council. I hope that the hon. and gallant Member for Macclesfield will make it quite clear to some of his colleagues on the county council that his only objection is to Clause 65 and that he has no objection to Clauses 190 and 191 to which the Cheshire County Council attach considerable importance.
I will now deal with Clause 233. Surely authorities are entitled to see that private hire cars which are on their roads


and which are carrying their citizens are up to the same standard as taxicabs. If it is right to insist that taxicab owners should conform to a certain standard, then it is also right that private car hirers should do the same. Anyone who has had experience of hiring a private car knows that the price paid is very different from the price paid for riding in a taxi. The reason for the difference in price is due to the fact that the taxicab proprietor is controlled in the matter of the charge he makes whereas the private car hirer is free to charge what he likes.
What could be more frivolous than the objection to making a charge for carrying things to and from public wash-houses? The hon. and learned Member for the City of Chester (Mr. Nield) put his case admirably in explaining the need for this Clause. In the bad old days, when the population was crowded into the central part of the urban authority, these wash-houses were set up. They are now some distance from the new, clean and healthy housing estates, and the problem confronting those living on the estates is how to transport their washing to and from the public wash-houses which may be one, two or three miles distant from where they live.
All this Clause does is to give local authorities the power to call at the houses on the estates in order to collect and take the washing to the public wash-houses and in due course to deliver it back again and to make a charge for so doing, a very great convenience to tens of thousands of harassed housewives. I hope that not only my hon. Friends on this side of the House, but that the majority of hon. Members opposite will give the Conservative Cheshire County Council and the chairman of my Conservative council in the Crewe division of Cheshire this Bill for which they are asking tonight.

8.55 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Hurd: I rise to commend very briefly to the House the Berkshire County Council Bill. I am anxious that we should get the Second Reading of the Bill tonight, but if the discussion goes on very much longer and if we have one or two Divisions on the Cheshire Bill I am fearful for the fate of the Berkshire Bill. I therefore appeal to my hon. Friends and to hon. Gentlemen opposite to give us a chance, if it

is the will of the House, to approve the Second Reading of our Bill.
This Measure has been the subject of much discussion in the county. I wish the consultations had been even fuller and more detailed at an earlier stage so that it would not have been necessary for my hon. Friends to suggest Instructions to the Committee. In the last three or four days it has been possible for the promoters to listen to and to be convinced by the views that have been put to them. Some curiosity has been expressed from the benches opposite about the source of these objections. I can only speak for myself. I happen to be one of the Members of Parliament for Berkshire, and I have received from florists in my constituency objections to the proposal which would have led the borough councils to go into the floral hire business.

Mr. Blackburn: Would the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Hurd: No, I would not. I shall conclude my point. Objections have also been put to me on other Clauses, for example, the hairdressing Clause. There is one objection from a village postman who is accustomed to cut people's hair in the evening—God bless him. This is not his regular business. After discussions which we have had with the county council, they agree not to hinder such service which is of benefit to a man's neighbours.
On the floral decorations Clause there are suggestions which the promoters of the Bill, the Berkshire County Council, will put to the Committee so as to meet the objections of local market gardeners and local florists. What is proposed is that the council of an urban district may let on hire to the council of a local authority or parish council plants and flowers for floral decoration for use on land or premises owned, occupied or maintained, or required, in connection with the exercise of the powers and duties of the council, local authority or parish council, as the case may be. The powers shall not include any power to let their land or premises on hire. The effect of that is that the council can provide these floral decorations on local authority premises, but is not going into trade in competition with established florists and market gardeners. I think that will meet the


case of my constituents who are ratepayers in Berkshire.
I should like to mention Clause 27 which, it has seemed to farmers who live alongside the Bath Road, would prevent them having the use of the verges in order to move cattle from their cowsheds to pastures on the other side of the Bath Road. It has been suggested that we should exempt horses and cattle from the Clause. This should apply to Clause 26 as well as to Clause 27. I ask the promoters to look at this point more closely.
I do not want to say any more, because the Bill has been thoroughly discussed in Berkshire. There is still one outstanding objection. Several printers have objected to the Clause which would enable the county council to do printing work for other local authorities. It is not printing as we understand it in this House, but a form of duplication which nevertheless might enter into competition with the printing trade.
The promoters tell me that they are impressed with the objections which have been raised and they will try to make fully clear when the Bill comes before the Committee that it is not their desire in any way to set up a big printing press that will compete with ordinary commercial printing. With these words, I commend the Berkshire County Council Bill to the House and hope that it will have a Second Reading tonight.

9.0 p.m.

Mr. Ede: I am speaking only for myself when I intervene in this debate, but I want to make it clear that I support these two Bills; I believe that they put forward necessary powers which these two county councils ought to have. I welcome also the form of the Bill, which collects the needs of the county district council within the county and puts those needs forward in one Bill instead of each of the non-county boroughs, urban districts and rural districts having to promote a separate Bill of their own.
The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Hurd) appears to be quite ill-informed about the Clause relating to floral decorations. The Clause gives no power to the county council at all. The hon. Member said that he was protecting his constituents from the county council

going into this business, but they receive no powers at all. The boroughs in the county get no powers, and neither do the rural districts. The only people who get powers are the urban district councils. That is the case with the Cheshire Bill and, as I read the Berkshire Bill, which I have had in my hands in the last few minutes, that Bill also limits the powers to an urban district. Will the hon. Member for Newbury say whether my memory has failed me during the short space of about eight minutes?

Mr. Hurd: If the Clause were passed in its present form local authorities would be enabled to enter this trade.

Mr. Ede: The Clause only says "urban district." It does not say county, non-county borough, or rural district. A county is not made up only of urban districts. This is a very limited power, and it deals with the smaller towns in not all of which are florists available. The hon. Member for Kidderminster (Mr. Nabarro) said that he was standing up for Worcestershire. Why did he not stand up for it in 1951 when the city and county borough of Worcester obtained exactly these powers for itself?

Mr. Nabarro: The answer is simply that the Bill at that time was being dealt with by my hon. Friend the Member for Worcester (Mr. Ward) who adequately covered this point, and also because I was not fortunate, Mr. Speaker, in catching your eye.

Mr. Ede: Let us face this further point. This Bill has already been through another place.

Mr. Nabarro: Answer me.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Member could have voted against that Bill. I do not know whether he had been elected to the Active Back Benchers Group then.

Mr. Nabarro: The right hon. Gentleman is entirely deficient in his memory on this matter. Will he tell the House when a Division took place on that Bill, what was the result and what were the Instructions? The right hon. Gentleman has no knowledge on this matter.

Mr. Ede: Oh, yes, I have. The hon. Gentleman could himself have put down an Instruction had he been watching the interests of Worcestershire flower growers.

Mr. Nabarro: That is not my constituency.

Mr. Ede: It is quite foolish to talk of this Bill as if it were some revolutionary invasion thought up either in Berkshire or in Cheshire. As a matter of fact, these powers have been given to Nottinghamshire, Leamington, Preston, Swindon, Worcester Borough, Wolverhampton and Huddersfield.

Mr. Nabarro: Not to Kidderminster.

Mr. Ede: The hon. Gentleman had better watch out. He can never tell what may get through another place. The National Farmers' Union, after all, is a body that has a very active Parliamentary side and they could have petitioned in another place against this Bill. They are not unused to Parliamentary procedure or to the steps that are necessary to protect their members.
Here I think I speak for my hon. Friends on this side of the House. I want to protest against the way in which the active back benchers on the other side get in at the wrong stage in these matters. I suggest that the proper time for them to intervene is after the Bill has been examined in Committee upstairs where the statements that are made to the Committee are made on oath, where we can be quite certain that anything that is said is said with, as the lady said when she had to form of the oath read to her, all those limitations which have been imposed on free speech.
I imagine that many of us here have served on Committees upstairs and we know the careful way in which the four Members appointed examine these matters and the care with which learned counsel employed by the various parties appearing before them set out the case for and against the interests of certain people. I suggest that after that has been done, when the Bill comes here for consideration, if Members object to what has been done, they should at that stage intervene because then the general body of Members of the House can have access to the proceedings upstairs and can know what the promoters and the opposers say.

Sir H. Williams: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell me in how many cases he has intervened during the consideration of a Bill on Report rather than on Second Reading?

Mr. Ede: No, I am not undertaking to give any information of the sort. I am suggesting that when there is an active body, as I understand these hon. Gentlemen call themselves—the "active back benchers"; a club, I understand, to which some of them belong, and I am not using that term in any offensive sense—they should exercise their powers in that way and then the House, called upon to reach these decisions, would have far more information available to them. I sincerely hope that tonight they will not proceed with these Instructions. I have never heard it suggested that any Private Bill Committee have reached decisions on anything other than the evidence which has been heard upstairs, but if hon. Members are still dissatisfied, or think that their colleagues upstairs have not preserved a judicial attitude, we should then have an opportunity of further considering the matter.

9.10 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (Mr. Ernest Marples): It may be convenient to the House if I intervene at this stage to give my hon. Friends and hon. Members opposite the views of the Government. As I undertsand it, my hon. Friends are moving that Instructions be given to the Committee and, as that is a Committee upstairs, they are in effect moving Amendments to the Bill.
They have put many Instructions on the Order Paper, but they have withdrawn a great number of them on reaching a compromise with the promoters. In the case of the Berkshire County Council Bill, there is now no dispute, but in the case of the Cheshire County Council Bill agreement has been reached on some but not on all points. The discussions tonight have covered not only the points in dispute but a much wider range of Clauses which have been agreed, and we have had a much wider discussion than we might have had if we had devoted ourselves to those Clauses about which there is a dispute.
As I understand it, there are three disputed Clauses in the Cheshire County Council Bill. They are Clause 190, which is concerned with a general insurance fund; Clause 191, which is an extension of that general insurance fund to a police fund, and Clause 64, which deals with the letting or hiring of plants and flowers by urban district councils.

Clause 190 enables the county council to establish a general insurance fund. There are many precedents for such a Clause, but provisions to make the power general were dropped, as my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) said, in the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Bill, which was a Private Member's Bill moved by the hon. and learned Member for Kettering (Mr. Mitchison). He withdrew that provision from the Bill because he realised that it was a controversial point.

The same thing applies to Clause 191, which extends to the Cheshire police authority the powers sought by the Cheshire County Council to establish an internal insurance fund. On both those related Clauses the Government have formed the view that they would not like to issue any advice to hon. Members on this side of the House or to the House in general, and they intend to leave the matter entirely to a free vote, whichever view hon. Members are inclined to take.

Clause 64 provides that any urban district council of Cheshire may let or hire:
plants flowers and other floral decorations and may make such charges as they may think fit.
The Berkshire County Council have agreed to confine the sales to other local authorities, but the Cheshire County Council want power for urban district councils to sell to anyone and make appropriate charges.

Mr. Sparks: They do not say "sell," but "hire," which is a very different matter.

Mr. Marples: They say:
… let on hire plants flowers and other floral decorations ….
I stand corrected by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Sparks). My hon. Friends object on the ground that this is municipal trading of an unfair character. To summarise their views, they say it is unfair because private individuals acting as florists, or connected with horticulture, not only have the expense of cultivating the flowers but also have to pay rates to the local authority, who might themselves be competing with them.
Street decorations—a question which was mentioned by an hon. Member opposite in an interruption—would not

be affected if this Clause were rejected, because local authorities can use their own flowers on their own buildings and in the streets on any occasion such as the Coronation.

Mr. J. T. Price: Is not the hon. Gentleman aware—with all the academic arguments on this matter of municipal trading—that precisely the same objections as are made to this simple Clause are being made against municipal transport, municipal gas and other municipal undertakings? What we object to is that under cover of raising a question of principle the trade interests are putting pressure on this House to adopt views which do not accord with those of constituents.

Mr. Marples: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) said that the National Farmers' Union have not objected at this stage.

Mr. Ede: No. I said in another place.

Mr. Marples: I have a document here from the promoters. As I understand it, a petition against this Clause has been deposited by the National Farmers' Union and the florists' Association. It will be heard upstairs. They object, but have not objected in another place. In this case also the Government do not wish to give any advice to the House.

Mr. W. R. Williams: They cannot make up their minds.

Mr. Marples: The hon. Member says we cannot make up our minds, but I thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite wanted a free vote. I felt sure that, as they take the advice of the Government so frequently, on this occasion they would care to dispense with it. Therefore, on this occasion the Government have decided to leave it entirely to a free vote of the House. Hon. Members are free to vote as they think, and I myself—and I am speaking now as a private Member—shall vote whichever way I think.

Several Hon. Members: rose——

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Charles Mac Andrew): I should have thought that the House could have come to a decision on this now.

Hon. Members: No.

9.16 p.m.

Dr. Horace King: I should not have intervened in this debate if it had not been for the fact that I am troubled about the proceedings in the case of these Private Bills. Private Bill procedure in this House makes one who is used to party government thank goodness we have party government and the party system as the ordinary method of conducting proceedings in this House. I should have liked to have defended at some length Clause 233 in the Cheshire County Council Bill, which gives the taxi-men, not a privileged position over the private hire car, but secures free and fair competition as between the taximen and the private hire traders, but I want to say a word about what has happened tonight and what has happened in the days just before.
A group of hon. Members, because they object to six or seven Clauses in a Bill of 256 Clauses, have got into contact with the parties behind the Bill, have tabled an Amendment by which they threaten to divide the House against the Bill, have put on the Notice Paper a number of Instructions to the Committee by which they threaten again to divide the House seven times against the Bill, and in this way point a pistol to the head of a county council who seek to secure a number of powers that people of all parties in the county believe essential. Those hon. Members seek to make the county council modify those provisions.
I think the procedure on Private Bills is something that ought to be reformed, that there is a kind of blackmail in it when a single hon. Member or a small group of hon. Members can exert pressure on those who need a Bill, the promoters of the Bill, who are handicapped by the problem of getting time to debate a Private Bill. I think something ought to be done to reform this procedure.

9.19 p.m.

Mr. C. S. Taylor: There seems to be some misapprehension among hon. Members opposite about the Private Bill procedure. For many years now it has been customary for any hon. Member who wishes to object to any part of any Private Bill to say "Object" when the Second Reading is called by the Clerk, and it is perfectly in order, and always has been, so far as I know, for any Member to raise any objection to any

Private Bill. Some hon. Members may have done so in the case of Bills affecting their own constituencies, but those hon. Members who are associated with me in objecting particularly to provisions of the Cheshire County Council Bill raise those objections as matters of principle.
We want to make it perfectly clear that what may become law so far as Cheshire is concerned today may become law in other parts of the country at a later date. In fact, already, by the lack of vigilance of this House, certain authorities have been given these powers.

Mr. J. T. Price: Eastbourne.

Mr. Taylor: If those powers are reasonably necessary they should be applicable to the whole of the country and should not be dealt with by piecemeal legislation in this way.
There are three main Clauses to which we take objection. There is no question of blackmailing the local authority. Obviously, after objections to the Cheshire Bill and to the Berkshire Bill week after week, there comes a time when the Chairman of Ways and Means says that these Bills must be discussed at a certain time and on a certain day. Obviously, the local authorities, or their Parliamentary agents concerned, approach the Members who have objected to the Bills and say, "What is your objection; perhaps we can reach some compromise to overcome your objection?"
That is what has happened in the case of the Berkshire County Council Bill. They have been advised—I think wisely advised—and in consequence the time of the House has not been taken up in making objections to the Berkshire County Council Bill; but the Cheshire County Council have been advised in a different way, and although the Berkshire County Council have agreed to a compromise Clause on the supply of floral decorations, the Cheshire County Council have not agreed.
I do not think that I need deal at great length with the insurance Clauses. The House decided on a previous occasion that this particular type of Clause was an undesirable Clause for general application, and I see no reason why the Cheshire County Council—or the Berkshire County Council for that


matter, because Berkshire had agreed to abide by the decision taken over Cheshire—why this county council should indulge in insurance of their own property. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Because it is not the duty of a county council to effect their own insurances.

Mr. J. T. Price: rose——

Mr. Taylor: One of the hon. Member's hon. Friends opposite attacked me personally by mentioning me in this House and then refused to give way, and the hon. Member must allow me to finish my remarks because time is getting short.
The only other Clause to which we took exception was that concerning private hire cars. So far as I can understand, the only two cases which Cheshire have against the type of private hire cars that are operating within the boundaries of Cheshire is that one is an old taxi in which the town clerk of Macclesfield goes occasionally because there is no other taxi available—and if the Cheshire County Council decide to do away with this one late-night taxi they will not be any better off because there will not be

a taxi at all—and the other case—mentioned in the discussions beforehand, is the case of Runcorn which has only private hire cars and no taxis at all.

I am proud tonight that the group presided over by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, East (Sir H. Williams) has drawn the attention of the House to these Private Bills. A number of Members of this House—[HON. MEMBERS: "How many?"]—thirty or forty, have always made it one of their jobs to see that Private Bill legislation does not go through this House of Commons without it being fully and properly considered. We are proud tonight that we have been able to draw the attention of the House to matters which otherwise might easily have escaped the attention of this honourable House.

Mr. Nield: rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 150; Noes, 101.

Division No. 206.]
AYES
[9.25 p.m.


Albu, A. H.
Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Mason, Roy


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Hale, Leslie
Mellish, R. J.


Allen, Scholefieid (Crewe)
Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Mitchison, G. R


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hannan, W.
Monslow, W.


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hargreaves, A.
Moody, A. S.


Awbery, S. S.
Hastings, S.
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W.


Bartley, P.
Hayman, F. H.
Morley, R.


Bence, C. R.
Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Healy, Cahir (Fermanagh)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.


Bing, G. H. C.
Herbison, Miss M.
Moyle, A.


Blyton, W. R.
Hobson, C. R.
Mulley, F. W.


Boardman, H.
Holman, P.
Murray, J. D.


Bowden, H. W.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Holt, A. F.
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J


Brockway, A. F.
Hoy, J. H.
Oakshott, H. D.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Orbach, M.


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Hurd, A. R.
Oswald, T.


Champion, A. J.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Paget, R. T.


Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)


Clunie, J.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)


Coldrick, W.
Janner, B.
Palmer, A. M. F.


Collick, P. H.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Pargiter, G. A.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Parker, J.


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Pearson, A.


Deer, G.
Keenan, W.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Delargy, H. J.
King, Dr. H. M.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Kinlay, J.
Proctor, W. T.


Edwards, John (Brighouse)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Pryde, D. J.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Redmayne, M.


Fernyhough, E.
Lewis, Arthur
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Finch, H. J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Remnant, Hon. P.


Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)
Lipton, Lt.-Col. M.
Rhodes, H.


Gibson, C. W.
Logan, D. G.
Richards, R.


Glanville, James
MacColl, J. E.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Gooch, E. G.
McGhee, H. G.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
McGovern, J.
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
McInnes, J.
Ross, William


Grey, C. F.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Royle, C.


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
McLeavy, F.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Manuel, A. C.
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)




Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)
Thornton, E.
Wills, G.


Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Snow, J. W.
Viant, S. P.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Sorensen, R. W.
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)
Wood, Hon. R.


Sparks, J. A.
Weitzman, D.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A


Steele, T.
West, D. G.
Wyatt, W. L.


Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John
Yates, V. F.


Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.



Sylvester, G. O.
Wilkins, W. A.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Taylor, John (West Lothian)
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)
Mr. Blackburn and Mr. Nield.




NOES


Aitken, W. T
Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Osborne, C.


Arbuthnot, John
Harden, J. R. E.
Partridge, E.


Asshelon, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Perkins, W. R. D.


Baldwin, A. E.
Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Powell, J. Enoch


Barlow, Sir John
Harvey, Air Cdr. A. V. (Macclesfield)
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L


Beach, Maj. Hicks
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Black, C. W.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Renton, D. L. M.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford, N.)
Robertson, Sir David


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark (E'b'rgh W.)
Roper, Sir Harold


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D


Brooman-White, R. C.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Scott, R. Donald


Bullard, D. G.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Shepherd, William


Campbell, Sir David
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Cary, Sir Robert
Llewellyn, D. T.
Stevens, G. P.


Cole, Norman
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Lockwood, Lt.-Col. J. C.
Storey, S.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Low, A. R. W.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Crouch, R. F.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Summers, G. S.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Deedes, W. F.
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Tilney, John


Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Turner, H. F. L.


Fisher, Nigel
Maclean, Fitzroy
Vane, W. M. F.


Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Ford, Mrs. Patricia
Markham, Major Sir S. F.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C


Fort, R.
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Gower, H. R.
Mellor, Sir John



Graham, Sir Fergus
Nabarro, G. D. N.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Sir Herbert Williams and Mr. Erroll.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)



Question, "That 'now' stand part of the Question," put accordingly, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) move his Instruction?

Mr. Erroll: May I move it on his behalf, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The name of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale (Mr. Erroll) is to the Instruction.

Mr. Erroll: I beg to move,
That it be an Instruction to the Committee on the Bill to leave out Clause 64.

Sir John Crowder: I beg to second the Motion.

Question put.

The House divided: Ayes, 128: Noes, 140.

Division No. 207.]
AYES
[9.35 p.m.


Aitken, W. T.
Brooman-White, R. C.
Deedes, W. F.


Amory, Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Buchan-Hepburn, Rt. Hon. P. G. T.
Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.


Arbuthnot, John
Bullard, D. G.
Drewe, Sir C.


Assheton, Rt. Hon. R. (Blackburn, W.)
Campbell, Sir David
Duncan, Capt. J. A. L.


Baldwin, A. E.
Cary, Sir Robert
Elliot Rt. Hon. W. E.


Barlow, Sir John
Clarke, Col. Ralph (East Grinstead)
Fisher, Nigel


Beach, Major Hicks
Cole, Norman
Fleetwood-Hesketh, R. F.


Birch, Nigel
Cooper-Key, E. M.
Ford, Mrs. Patricia


Black, C. W.
Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Fort, R.


Bossom, Sir A. C.
Crookshank, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. F. C.
Fraser, Sir Ian (Morecambe & Lonsdale)


Boyle, Sir Edward
Crouch, R. F.
Galbraith, T. G. D. (Hillhead)


Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.
Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Gomme-Duncan, Col. A.


Brooke, Henry (Hampstead)
Darling, Sir William (Edinburgh, S.)
Gower, H. R.




Graham, Sir Fergus
Mackeson, Brig. H. R.
Roper, Sir Harold


Gridley, Sir Arnold
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Ryder, Capt. R. E. D.


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Salter, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclean, Fitzroy
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Harden, J. R. E.
Macleod, Rt. Hon. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Simon, J. E. S. (Middlesbrough, W.)


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N.)
Macpherson, Nial (Dumfries)
Smyth, Brig. J. G. (Norwood)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Comdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Steward, W. A. (Woolwich, W.)


Harvey, Air Cdre. A. V. (Macolesfield)
Markham, Major Sir S. F.
Storey, S.


Hay, John
Marples, A. E.
Strauss, Henry (Norwich, S.)


Heald, Sir Lionel
Marshall, Douglas (Bodmin)
Studholme, H. G.


Heath, Edward
Maydon, Lt.-Comdr. S. L. C.
Summers, G. S.


Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Medlicott, Brig. F.
Sutcliffe, Sir Harold


Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mellor, Sir John
Taylor, Charles (Eastbourne)


Hudson, Sir Austin (Lewisham, N.)
Mott-Radclyffe, C. E.
Thompson, Lt.-Cdr. R. (Croydon, W.)


Hurd, A. R.
Nabarro, G. D. N.
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hn. Peter (Monmouth)


Hutchinson, Sir Geoffrey (Ilford. N.)
Nicholson, Godfrey (Farnham)
Tilney, John


Hutchison, Lt.-Com. Clark-(E'b'rgh W.)
Nicolson, Nigel (Bournemouth, E.)
Turner, H. F. L.


Hylton-Foster, H. B. H.
Nugent, G. R. H.
Vane, W. M. F.


Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Ward, Miss I. (Tynemouth)


Kaberry, D.
Osborne, C.
Waterhouse, Capt. Rt. Hon. C.


Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Partridge, E.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Charles (Torquay)


Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Perkins, W. R. D.
Williams, Gerald (Tonbridge)


Linstead, Sir H. N.
Powell, J Enoch
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)


Llewellyn, D. T.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Rayner, Brig. R.
Wills, G.


Longden, Gilbert
Redmayne, M.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Low, A. R. W.
Rees-Davies, W. R.
Wood, Hon. R.


Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Remnant, Hon. P.



Lucas, P. B. (Brentford)
Renton, D. L. M.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Roberts, Peter (Heeley)
Sir Herbert Williams and


McCorquodale, Rt. Hon. M. S.
Robertson, Sir David
Mr. Erroll.




NOES


Albu, A. H.
Holmes, Horace (Hemsworth)
Pearson, A.


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Holt, A. F.
Price, Joseph T. (Westhoughton)


Anderson, Frank (Whitehaven)
Hoy, J. H.
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)


Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R.
Hudson, James (Ealing, N.)
Proctor, W. T.


Awbery, S. S.
Hynd, H. (Accrington)
Pryde, D. J.


Bartley, P.
Irving, W. J. (Wood Green)
Reid, William (Camlachie)


Bence, C. R.
Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Rhodes, H.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Janner, B.
Richards, R.


Bing, G. H. C.
Johnson, James (Rugby)
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.


Blyton, W. R.
Jones, David (Hartlepool)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Boardman, H.
Jones, Frederick Elwyn (West Ham, S.)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)


Bowden, H. W.
Keenan, W.
Ross, William


Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
King, Dr. H. M.
Royle, C.


Brockway, A. F.
Kinlay, J.
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Brook, Dryden (Halifax)
Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Silverman, Julius (Erdington)


Brown, Thomas (Ince)
Lever, Leslie (Ardwick)
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Champion, A. J.
Lewis, Arthur
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke-on-Trent)


Clunie, J.
Lindgren, G. S.
Slater, J. (Durham, Sedgefield)


Coldrick, W.
Lipton, Li.-Col. M.
Snow, J. W.


Collick, P. H.
Logan, D. G.
Sorensen, R. W.


Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)
MacColl, J. E.
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Davies, Harold (Leek)
McGhee, H. G.
Sparks, J. A.


Deer, G.
McGovern, J.
Steele, T.


Delargy, H. J.
McInnes, J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham, E.)


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
McLeavy, F.
Sylvester, G. O.


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Manuel, A. C.
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Fernyhough, E.
Mason, Roy
Taylor, Rt. Hon. Robert (Morpeth)


Finch, H. J.
Mellish, R. J.
Thornton, E.


Gibson, C. W.
Mitchison, G. R.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Glanville, James
Monslow, W.
Viant, S. P.


Gooch, E. G.
Moody, A. S
Webb, Rt. Hon. M. (Bradford, C.)


Greenwood, Anthony (Rossendale)
Morgan, Dr. H. B. W
Weitzman, D.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mcrley, R.
West, D. G.


Grey, C. F.
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Wheatley, Rt. Hon. John


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Moyle, A.
Whiteley, Rt. Hon. W.


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Mulley, F. W.
Wilkins, W. A.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Murray, J. D.
Williams, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Don V'll'y)


Hale, Leslie
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Williams, W. R. (Droylsden)


Hall, John T. (Gateshead, W.)
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. J.
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Hannan, W.
Orbach, M.
Winterbottom, Richard (Brightside)


Hargreaves, A.
Oswald, T.
Woodburn, Rt. Hon. A.


Hastings, S.
Paget, R. T.
Wyatt, W. L.


Hayman, F. H.
Paling, Rt. Hon. W. (Dearne Valley)
Yates, V. F.


Healey, Denis (Leeds, S. E.)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)



Herbison, Miss M.
Palmer, A. M. F.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hobson, C. R
Pargiter, G. A.
Mr. Blackburn and


Holman, P.
Parker, J.
Mr. Scholefield Allen.


Question put, and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: I understand that it is now desired to move only the Instruction on Clause 190.

Mr. Enroll: No, Sir.

Mr. Speaker: Do I understand it is not desired to move any other Instruction?

Mr. Erroll: Yes, Sir.

BERKSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read a Second time, and committed.

Mr. Speaker: I understand it is not desired to move any Instructions.

Mr. Erroll: That is correct.

SUPPLY

Again considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Original Question again proposed.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

NATIONAL INSURANCE (INDUSTRIAL INJURIES) (No. 2) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make further provision with respect to the system of insurance established by the National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) Act, 1946, and to extend the class of persons to whom certain benefits may be paid under section eighty-two of that Act and the benefits under that Act which may be so paid, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increase in the contribution so payable under paragraph (b) of section two of the 1946 Act, being an increase attributable to provisions of the new Act which either extend the employments in connection with ships, vessels and aircraft, which are insurable employments under the 1946 Act or relate to the payment of contributions in respect of an insured person under the 1946 Act otherwise than by reference to weeks in which the insured person is employed; and

(b) the treatment as expenses incurred in carrying the 1946 Act into effect which under section sixty of that Act are to be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament subject to reimbursement to the Treasury out of the Industrial Injuries Fund of any expenses incurred by the Minister of National Insurance or any other Government department by virtue of the new Act.

EMERGENCY LAWS (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) [MONEY]

Resolution reported:
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make permanent provision with respect to certain matters with respect to which temporary provision has hitherto been made by or under Defence Regulations, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) the payment out moneys provided by Parliament of any expenses incurred by the Minister of Transport which are attributable to any provisions of the said Act empowering him to provide for the issue, to persons employed or engaged, or ordinarily employed or engaged, on ships, of cards containing particulars with respect to those persons;
(b) the payment into the Exchequer of any fees received in payment for the issue, by virtue of any such provisions, to such persons of such cards.

PIG SWILL

Motion made, and Question proposed. "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

9.47 p.m.

Mr. Spencer Summers: The subject I want to bring to the attention of the House tonight is that of the policy of the Government as it affects the disposal of pig swill. There are certain features which warrant public attention, and I want to stress the effect of Government policy on at least one case in my constituency of which I have full details. I also want to discuss this matter so that others similarly placed may contrive somehow to escape the most unfortunate consequences which fell upon my constituent, Mr. Stanbridge, of Whelpby Hill, near Chesham.
The best way in which I can bring out the general points which have a wide application is to relate the circumstances


affecting one case and to refer to the general aspects as the story unfolds itself. The father of this farmer had a property alongside Bovingdon Aerodrome. The family lost almost the whole of their farm and a shop when the aerodrome was established. They had only two or three acres left from which to derive their living. They decided that the most satisfactory way in which to make use of the land was to develop it as a small holding for the rearing of pigs.
To that end they sought a source of supply of feedingstuffs and contrived, as far back as 1943, to arrange contracts with the Army in Berkhamsted and with the Royal Air Force at Bovingdon for regular supplies of pig swill. Arrangements were made by the farmer to collect from those sources. Everything went smoothly until 1950. At that stage the Americans took over the aerodrome. They were faced with the problem of disposing of the swill which arose as a result of the occupation of the aerodrome.
I want to stress in this story the fact that, at that time—September, 1950—the Ministry of Agriculture recommended this particular farmer as one who was suitable to receive the swill from the aerodrome, and also described him as a qualified contractor. On that recommendation, a 12 months' contract was arranged by the American authorities to enable him to receive a supply, and that contract ran for a year. The farmer found that the numbers on the aerodrome were increasing and the quantity of swill that came his way for his pigs was getting larger, with the result that, in July, 1951, he thought it necessary to equip his place with a more up-to-date plant. Encouraged by the recommendation from the Ministry and its recommendation of him as a qualified contractor, he spent no less than £500 in a variety of ways in order to put himself in a more satisfactory position in which to handle the supply which came to his pigs from the aerodrome. That contract was renewed for another year.
In August, 1952, inspectors from the Ministry came round to see what were the facilities at the disposal of this farmer, and whether it was reasonable that he should handle pig swill. They came, as far as I know, without warning, inspected the site, and reported themselves well

satisfied with all they found. In September, a month after the inspection by Ministry officials, there was a letter, a copy of which I have here, from the American commanding officer at Bovingdon recommending that a further contract for swill should be entered into, because they were well satisfied with the service they had had hitherto. Therefore, up to that point in the autumn of 1952, there had been nine years of satisfactory handling by this particular farmer of swill from the Army, the R.A.F. and the American Forces without a single complaint.
Notwithstanding the recommendation two years earlier of the Ministry, and the wish of the American authorities to continue to send their swill to this farmer, pressure was brought to bear by the Ministry of Agriculture, the effect of which was to discontinue, or rather to prevent, the renewal of that contract. At that stage, I came on the scene, and I had all the information put at my disposal. I entered into what has proved to be a very lengthy correspondence with my hon. Friend in which all the circumstances leading up to that situation were brought out, and an explanation was given to me why the Ministry had declined to approve of the renewal of that particular contract.
It seems that the Government view is that the risk of foot-and-mouth disease is so great that they must pursue a policy in the handling of swill which ensures, as far as practicable, that it shall be dealt with only in central plants where sterilisation can be carried out. As a consequence, where there is within a reasonable distance of the source of supply a central plant where sterilisation can be carried out, farmers who have had such supplies are no longer able to receive them, because they have to be delivered to the central sterilisation plant.
I do not want to enter into the technical justification of that policy, as announced by the Government, and as now applied to this particular farmer, for I am not qualified to judge whether the evidence upon which that policy is based is satisfactory, but will content myself by saying that it seems strange that plant which had been inspected and passed by officials within a mile of the source of supply should be thought less satisfactory for handling swill than plant 17 miles away


where, admittedly, there are facilities for the sterilisation of supplies.
As I say, I do not want to go into details. There may be other hon. Members present tonight who know more about the technicalities of handling swill than I do, and, if so, I hope they will express a view on this aspect of the matter. The point I wish to bring out is that it is quite unreasonable for the Government to take the view that central sterilisation of this material is necessary without, at the same time, taking steps to ensure that those farmers who do not have such facilities and who depend upon pig swill in order to maintain their livestock are warned that as soon as facilities are available in the district for central sterilisation they will be deprived of their supplies.
In this instance, apart from there being no warning that the ability to receive supplies from the aerodrome was a purely temporary one, inspectors came down and gave the farmer the clearest indication that he need have no fear for the future because they were reporting to their principals in Whitehall that the practice which he was carrying on was entirely satisfactory. Having had the goodwill of such business for a number of years and in view of the complete absence of any complaints and the wish of the supplier to continue the arrangement, coupled with the fact that he was described by the Ministry as a qualified contractor and that officials had passed his practice as satisfactory, is it to be wondered that he felt justified in spending what to a man of his type of farming was a substantial sum, namely, £500?
In the correspondence which I have had with the Ministry, I pointed out that in my opinion there was a very strong moral obligation upon the Ministry to make good the lack of warning by them in this instance by compensating the farmer for the expenditure he had incurred and which had resulted from the implied encouragement he had received and the absence of any warning that his source of supply was to be regarded as purely temporary until such time as it was diverted elsewhere. So far I have been unsuccessful in persuading the Ministry that the hardship felt by this farmer is deserving of some recompense. As a result of the correspondence I remain completely convinced that

there is a very strong case for recognising that hardship and for reimbursing this man for at any rate some, if not all, of the expenditure incurred.
Were the story left there it would be consistent, but the House will be interested to learn that despite the effect on the farmer of cutting off his source of supply in the interest of the scientific prevention of foot-and-mouth disease and despite the long correspondence and ultimate refusal to guarantee the position, his contract was cancelled in the autumn of last year.

It being Ten o'Clock, the Motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House do now adjourn."—[Mr. Kaberry.]

Mr. Summers: It is surprising, in the face of all that, to note the apparent determination of the Ministry to continue the policy of centralised handling of pig swill. Despite the fact that they had made arrangements that the Army, the Air Force and the hospitals should send sup-lies in the way I have described, I am given to understand that in February of this year, after the contract had been cancelled, authority was given for a contract between the R.A.F. at the same aerodrome but a mile further away, and the same farmer.
It is fantastic that such completely inconsistent policies should be pursued by the Ministry in this matter. I acknowledge that the size of the contract with the R.A.F. would not lead to the passing of very large supplies, by reason of the fact that the people are not sufficient to build up a very large supply of pig swill. Nevertheless, I want to bring out the inconsistency of policy in returning to that second contract. It is rather strange, after all that has transpired, that there should be such a complete reversal of policy.
I want to allude to only one other aspect of this case, and I would refer to an extract from a letter written by my hon. Friend. I want to correct an impression which appears to exist in the Ministry, and I will therefore read one paragraph from the letter, which is dated 21st November, 1952. It is:
As you have pointed out, it is a weakness of our procedure that no warning was given to Mr. Stanbridge that these inspections are


without prejudice to our central sterilisation policy, and action on these lines will be taken in the future. Although no such warning was given, however, I can find no evidence that the outlay for renewal of the plant last year was connected with any visit by our officers and I do not think that Mr. Stanbridge himself makes this particular claim.
Mr. Stanbridge does not make such a claim, and nor does anyone else. The reason money was spent was that he was described as "a qualified contractor," which seemed quite sufficient justification to him to expect a continuance of the supplies and no interference by the Minister. That was not so.
I would end by saying that I hope that others who are taking pig swill from wherever it may be locally, and not owning central sterilisation plant, will, as a result of this discussion tonight, realise that the day may come in the near future when their source of supply will be stopped and diverted to a central sterilisation plant. They may be told that they need not concern themselves very much, because arrangement will be made for a similar quantity of material to come to them from the central sterilising plant, but the price suggested in this instance from the sterilising plant was, delivered, £7 10s. per ton. That is a very different proposition from the price of the raw material, practically across the road, ready to be put into the boiling plant of the farmer himself.
In this instance, the price is not the prime consideration because on more than one occasion an experiment has been made to discover whether the service from the central plant would be satisfactory in the hope that that would be the easy way out and the way to meet the wishes of the Government. Great inconvenience and trouble was involved and even when his whole scheme was stopped the farmer found it more satisfactory to curtail the number of his livestock than to rely on a service by the central sterilising plant some 15 miles away.
In this instance no satisfactory alternative was offered to the supply upon which the farmer had relied all along. I hope that I have said sufficient to bring out the point that this farmer was perfectly justified in spending £500 because of the absence of warning on the part of the Ministry and the implied encouragement which he received. There is

a strong obligation on the Ministry to make good their omission to warn him of the precariousness of his supplies by helping him to recover the money which he has spent to no purpose and to cope with the (position in which he finds himself in having to cut down very materially the size of his livestock as the result of Government policy. I hope that what I have said will reach the ears of those who are similarly affected and will prevent their being placed in the same position.

10.7 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture (Mr. G. R. H. Nugent): I must say straight away to my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Summers) that my personal sympathy throughout has been with Mr. Stanbridge, the pig keeper who has suffered in this case. I acknowledge also that my hon. Friend has put the case very fairly and I congratulate him on behalf of his constituent on the trouble that he has taken in writing to me and in now bringing the matter before the House.
There are certainly aspects of the case which are hard and not altogether satisfactory, and I accept the responsibility. If ventilation of this case does no other good it certainly will give additional publicity to an aspect of Government policy which is perhaps not as well known as we could wish it to be.
First of all, I should like to state briefly the general policy that we are following with regard to waste food collection so that the events which have occurred in this case become intelligible. The general policy on waste food collection depends on two factors. The first is the wish to collect all the waste food which can be turned into feedingstuffs for stock, and mainly for pig feeding. Secondly—and this is the important and difficult condition—there is the provision that collection and processing shall be done with the minimum of danger of spreading animal diseases. Those diseases are principally foot-and-mouth disease, swine fever, fowl pest, and the less known disease that comes in American swill—vesicular exanthema.
It is worth while recording in passing that it has been a successful policy, started at the beginning of the war and pursued since. The total quantity of processed swill in central plants last year


was about 382,000 tons. We have no exact estimate of the amount which went through farm boiling plants but it was at least an additional 250,000 tons. Those who have worked at it in the past and those who are doing it now are making a very useful contribution to feeding livestock in this country.

Mr. Summers: I understood that about three-fifths of the total was sterilised. Could my hon. Friend say how long his policy of establishing central plants has been going on?

Mr. Nugent: It has been proceeding gradually over, I thould think, the last five or six years. The process has been a fairly gradual one. I am quite willing to deal with that point now, as my hon. Friend has raised it. The development of the policy of processing in central plants depends on getting co-operation, first of all, from Government Departments and then, so far as possible, from catering establishments as well. Government Departments, of course, cover all camps, aerodromes, schools, hospitals and so forth.
It took some little time to get this policy generally understood and accepted by all the various Government Departments concerned. Then, having got the policy centrally accepted, again it took some little time for that to became known to all the separate catering units throughout the country and gradually to get those responsible for these catering establishments to turn over their contracts for collecting from the private collectors to the central processing plants.
Therefore, it has obviously taken quite a considerable time for it to develop, and of course many catering establishments at present still let their contracts out to private farmers for one reason or another, often because there is not a central processing plant available. As I say, it has been a gradual process, and I quite acknowledge the point that my hon. Friend has made that it is not generally as well known as it might be. This whole situation to a large extent rests on that fact.
I feel that I should refer in some detail to the veterinary considerations. Imported meat coming into this country very often contains foot-and-mouth virus or swine fever virus, and imported poultry

carcasses often contain fowl pest virus. These viruses will all survive for long periods even when they are in refrigeration, and they can only be killed for certain by boiling. Therefore, the first line of defence in dealing with waste food for livestock feeding is the regulation, which has been in existence for about 25 years, requiring that all raw swill shall be boiled for at least one hour before it is fed to livestock. That has been administered by the Ministry of Agriculture for many years.
The second line of defence against the spread of veterinary diseases is to require that, as far as possible, all raw swill shall be taken to a central processing plant away from livestock and be processed there. It is this second factor which has been the main cause of the hardship that Mr. Stanbridge has suffered. The justification for the central processing policy is that the veterinary records show that, apart from the exceptional outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease last year, nearly 60 per cent. of all primary outbreaks of foot-and-mouth disease have occurred on farms where raw swill is brought and processed for feeding to the livestock there.
In the face of those statistics one simply has to accept that the risk of raw swill being taken on to the farm and being processed and fed to the livestock contains danger of the spread of disease which should be avoided if at all possible.

Mr. Summers: Which year was that?

Mr. Nugent: Those are all the years for which our records have been compiled—presumably over the last 20 or 25 years. It is not just for one year, but year after year after year, excluding only the figures for the tremendous and exceptional outbreak of last year. It shows quite clearly that, reluctant as any of us would be to interfere with the private collector's contract, in the general interest of the livestock industry and with our responsibility for stopping the spread of veterinary diseases, we have no alternative but to pursue a policy of central processing. That has been done not only by this Administration but by previous ones.
There is no doubt that, so long as the raw swill is brought to the farm, the potential danger is there. The livestock may help themselves to the raw swill.


They may walk in and eat it. Alternatively, dogs, cats, rats, mice or birds may transfer the virus, or the attendants who deal with the livestock or swill may easily carry the infection on their hands or clothes; and utensils and vehicles are all possible ways of spreading the virus of foot-and-mouth disease, which is very persistent and highly infectious. No reasonable man can doubt that the policy of central processing cannot be refuted. The figures speak for themselves.
The development of the policy of central processing has been gradual, and inevitably so, as Government Departments have been gradually able to back up this general line of Government policy. Inevitably, wherever there has been the ending of a private contract in order to bring in a central processor, there has been difficulty and hardship for the farmer concerned, but we have to recognise and accept the fact that this is done in the general interest of all livestock keepers. We have done our best to ameliorate hardship by requiring that the operator of the central processing plant shall give a priority supply of his processed material to the farmer who loses his private contract, although I quite agree with my hon. Friend that it is not the same thing as getting raw swill. It is more expensive, and the private farmer is left with his processing plant, for which he has no use.
These, however, are aspects of the operation of a general policy which is fully justified, and the fact that the man is left with this plant which he cannot use is something for which the Government cannot accept responsibility. Much as I sympathise with Mr. Stanbridge in this case, there are no funds available to compensate farmers who find themselves with plant for which they no longer have a supply of raw swill for processing. But I am convinced that the general policy is justified.
I went into the case of Mr. Stanbridge in great detail, as my hon. Friend gave me the opportunity, and I agree that it is one which might wring anybody's heart. This unfortunate man had been handicapped in getting his living by the development of the aerodrome, and it seemed particularly hard that he should lose his contract. With regard to the

swill from American camps, however, we had to bear in mind the special consideration that American swill is known to contain this particularly troublesome virus—vesicular exanthema—which, in the view of our veterinary surgeons, is so dangerous that the swill should either go to a central processing plant or should be burnt.
Naturally it took us a little time before we first of all were able to form this view reliably that here was a risk. This is not a disease which is endemic in this country. Then, having taken the view, it took us a certain amount of time to persuade the American authorities of the need for this rather drastic policy and to get them to carry it out. In due course they did accept it, they did agree to carry it out, and that meant that contracts from the aerodromes where American personnel were living had to come to an end immediately. That was why in this particular case there had to be such an immediate and drastic end. I think that now throughout the country the Americans are being good enough to follow out this very drastic policy.
In regard to the point which was made by my hon. Friend that there was inconsistency, in that we allowed Mr. Stanbridge to go on collecting from the R.A.F. catering establishment at Whelpley Camp, the explanation is this. It is perfectly true that we are following the general policy of central processing, but we are not executives in the matter. The camp authorities have a fair measure of discretion about how and when they should bring these contracts to an end. In this case, I am advised, the R.A.F. personnel were going to leave Whelpley last month, and therefore their catering establishment was to come to an end, and I suppose they thought it was a reasonable thing that they should allow Mr. Stanbridge to continue to collect the swill for the few months that remained, in order to help him out and because there was very little point in starting a new contract there.

Mr. Summers: Is my hon. Friend aware that the contract was entered into three months after the American contract was cancelled?

Mr. Nugent: Yes, I am perfectly aware of that, but I am making the point to my hon. Friend that there was not an


especial veterinary risk in this R.A.F. swill, as opposed to the American swill, and that, as the period remaining was relatively short, I do not doubt that the camp commandant felt it was not unreasonable to allow Mr. Stanbridge to have the collection for that period; and I am bound to say I should not have thought so either in the circumstances.
In the whole of this policy we have just got to accept that we cannot make a law requiring central sterilisation and processing throughout the country everywhere or the destruction of the swill. We must accept a gradual process of more and more central sterilisation and processing and less and less private collection, and it is bound to take time before it has general application.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: While he is on that point, would the Parliamentary Secretary say to what extent over the period of last year or 18 months the central processing plant has been extended? At what pace?

Mr. Nugent: I am sorry I cannot give the figures. It is not easy to give figures, but I should say that it is going well and making fairly good progress. General instructions from Government Departments have been reaching the camps and catering establishments generally, and they have been progressively acting accordingly. In spite of the hardship involved, there is no real inconsistency in a policy which is bound to be gradual and bound to be flexible.
On the question of warning, I do agree with my hon. Friend that the present arrangements for informing farmers of what this general policy is are not as satisfactory as they should be, and I recognised that when I looked into this case. There was nothing that could be done to help Mr. Stanbridge in the matter, but I did immediately ask the Department to see what steps we could take to see that swill collectors are informed throughout the country. It has taken a certain amount of time to do that. It has involved fairly lengthy discussions with the representatives of the farmers, the National Farmers' Union, to settle the points with which we were concerned. We were concerned with two considerations. First, we wanted them to know that there was this risk of their contract

coming to an end, and, second, I particularly wanted them to know what were the conditions necessary in a plant so that it could qualify as a central processing plant, and so that farmers who could transform their farm plants into the conditions required for a central processing plant might do so.
The sort of conditions we require would be separate entrances, separate premises, separate transport and separate attendants running the swill plant. All these details take time to get agreed between the veterinary considerations, on the one hand, and the commercial considerations, on the other. We have got this pretty well agreed, and as soon as it is finally agreed we shall have this policy put in pamphlet form so that the veterinary officers can distribute them when they visit farm boiling plants.
We shall also ask the National Farmers' Union to use all their publicity facilities to let their members know of it and do anything else that we can to let the swill feeders know. I can assure my hon. Friend that if no other benefit comes out of this, we shall see that the farmers generally know what are these conditions.
Finally, may I say, in expressing my real sympathy for Mr. Stanbridge, who has suffered from this policy, that I hope by the end of next month, when we get into a period when feedingstuffs will no longer be rationed and he can buy all the feedingstuffs he wants, that if he has suffered by this act of Government policy he will at least benefit by that aspect of Government policy, because his feedingstuffs problems will be over.

10.27 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel Marcus Lipton: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that he was going to take steps to ensure that the Government's policy of the extension of central processing would be made known more widely in the future than in the past, that he was going to inform the veterinary surgeons in the country and ask the National Farmers' Union to let their members know. The only point on which I want to make certain is this—that the agricultural executive committees are not going to be left out. I hope that they will also be brought into the picture because they have their livestock officers, many of whom are very competent people, who


get round a good deal and establish contact with people who are not necessarily members of the N.F.U.
I take it that the agricultural committees will also be brought into the picture in making as widely known as possible the need for central processing on the very strong grounds which the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given to the House.

10.28 p.m.

Mr. Archer Baldwin: I want to make it clear that I agree entirely with the idea of sterilisation and of making swill as safe as it can be in these camps. I am rather at a loss to understand why this particular man had not been instructed. It is agreed that he was carrying on his job satisfactorily, and that went on to the autumn of 1952. Yet my hon. Friend says that for five or six

years they have been concentrating on central sterilisation. It seems to me that in this case unnecessary hardship has been caused to that man in that he was not warned. Instead of being told that he was doing his job properly, he should have been warned that the Ministry were going in for a policy of central sterilisation and then he would not have incurred the expenditure of £500 on new plant.
My hon. Friend says that he is full of sympathy. I hope that even at this late stage that sympathy will be put into a cash form to offset the heavy loss which this man has incurred through no fault of his own but through negligence on the part of Ministry officials in that they did not warn him in sufficient time.

Adjourned accordingly at Twenty-nine Minutes past Ten o'clock.